Ask a Reactionary

[Tahuti]

DISCLAIMER: While I was a reactionary at the time I was an active panelist of this thread, I do no longer identify with the label and my answers in this thread are no longer a reflection of my current views. Enjoy the thread though!

Considering the many 'Ask a Red' threads, I have decided to launch the 'Ask a Reactionary' thread as well, to dispel any miconceptions about monarchists, religious traditionalists etc.

As with the reds, there are a number of schools within reactionary thought, some opposed to each other on certain points, though scepticism of democracy and liberalism is a unifying thread in all of them.

Ask away!

 

[jackelgull]

Which strain of reactionary are you then? Do you want to go back to America's past and restrict voting requirements? Or perhaps you'd like to go farther back and resurrect a monarchy in America?

Do you support a religious monarchy, one that rules on Christian principles? R do you support a religious one.

Do you support freedom of religion and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights? Would you keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights, modify it, or disregard it entirely?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Were the Crusades a Reactionary reaction?

 

[Tahuti]

Were the Crusades a Reactionary reaction?

I see it as a match between the greatest men and women of Western Civilisation vs. those of Islamic civilisation. I don't see Islam as innately evil force in need to be destroyed for the good of mankind, though we are definitely destinied to face Islam again and again as long as both exist. Today, we (the West) face a likewise battle. It ought to be one without hate, for we should not intend to destroy our respected rivals.

Which strain of reactionary are you then? Do you want to go back to America's past and restrict voting requirements? Or perhaps you'd like to go farther back and resurrect a monarchy in America?

I'm a monarchist. I generally support absolute power for the monarch, though I reject the divine right of kings. Overall I view the early mediaeval monarchy (800-1000) as an ideal for countries of European culture: A decentralised monarchy where kings are elected by the aristocracy and delegates power to the aristocrats whenever they can't rule alone.

Do you support a religious monarchy, one that rules on Christian principles? R do you support a religious one.

Yes. That being said, I am personally an 'omnist' (that is, the belief that all religions contain the truth to a significant degree). What is most important is not that a governance is rests on a particular religion, but on divine power in general.

Do you support freedom of religion and all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights? Would you keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights, modify it, or disregard it entirely?

That is dependent on the country in question. That being said, in regards to freedom of religion, I think plenty of new religious movements like scientology are deserving of scorn and have yet to prove they truly are divinely inspired. At the very least, their practice should be discouraged.

 

[timtofly]

Was it wise for the Jews to give up God for a monarchy?

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm a monarchist. I generally support absolute power for the monarch, though I reject the divine right of kings. Overall I view the early mediaeval monarchy (800-1000) as an ideal for countries of European culture: A decentralised monarchy where kings are elected by the aristocracy and delegates power to the aristocrats whenever they can't rule alone.

And what would happen if one of these aristocrats decides he wants all the power, and the rest of the aristocrats are embroiled into in-fighting or plain just don't want to defend their king against the said aristocrat?

Or, God forbid, what if a group of aristocrats conspires against the King so they could seize all the power?

 

[Tahuti]

Was it wise for the Jews to give up God for a monarchy?

Forgive me if I am wrong, though I do not see the contradiction.

And what would happen if one of these aristocrats decides he wants all the power, and the rest of the aristocrats are embroiled into in-fighting or plain just don't want to defend their king against the said aristocrat?

May the best win.

Or, God forbid, what if a group of aristocrats conspires against the King so they could seize all the power?

Does it mean a new king gets installed or the nation turns into an aristocratic republic, like the Dutch Republic?

 

[Borachio]

You're the first person I've ever encountered who labels themselves as Reactionary. I thought it was normally a term of abuse used by so-called progressives.

How true is my impression?

 

[Jehoshua]

Just a clarification on "Jehoshua will also respond to questions". Basically Kaiserguard PM'ed me and asked if I would be willing to be listed as an authorised respondant for his (this) thread and I agreed after some questions (such as "what do you mean by reactionary?" as he notes, I see myself more as a traditionalist) seeing as people have been pestering me to systematically clarify my positions for quite some time now on CFC. Anyways this doesn't mean I'm in partnership with him (its his thread) or agree with him on things (as he notes as well), or that I will be regularly involved (I'm only responding when I'm in the mood to do so) answering everyones questions. It just means I have authorisation to use this thread to answer queries from my own particular traditionalist position.

Anyways, as to jackelgulls queries.

-

Which strain of reactionary is [Kaiserguard] then?

I asked him a similar question when he pmed me asking if I would be willing to be listed as an authorised respondant here (I asked "what do you mean by reactionary and what are your own views"). By his answer I would say that he aligns fairly closely with neoreactionary thoughts, although as with any individual his personal opinions aren't always consistent with a single theoretical position (that of neoreaction).

Do you want to go back to America's past and restrict voting requirements? Or perhaps you'd like to go farther back and resurrect a monarchy in America?

Its not about going backwards to anything, but rather going forward into a particular social vision of the workings of society, and the inter-relations between authority and the individual than currently dominates in the world today (I don't think "O such and such a time was the ideal model, lets exactly replicate that"). As to the actual question about policy in America though, I'm Australian so the particular form of your government doesn't concern me (we are a monarchy here already incidentally, so that aspect doesn't even apply). However if I may give my opinion on voting rights, my position is that if there is an electoral system at any level (I don't hold to democracy as an absolute moral value. elections are simply a functional system to choosing leaders with the key concern being efficacy in that regard) that it is generally better presuming society is interested in civil liberties and good order for the electorate to be restricted to men with property and over a certain age who contribute more to society than they take (my personal thing would be male, over the age of 21, who own land and pay more taxes than funds they receive from the state).

These restrictions I consider preferable because a) the young have short time preferences and lack the foresight to vote in the interests of society (thus why today we don't allow children to vote) b) it is best if the electorate is invested in the interests of society and the common good and is financially independent, since those who aren't tend to vote for candidates to office who satisfy their financial dependence to an ever greater degree resulting in harm to the state and society as a whole (thus why Europe and America are perpetually in debt). Ownership of land and an investment in the goods of that society via positive financial contribution in taxes are yardsticks simplistically trying to assess that competency then (since personally assessing every potential voter is impractical). I would restrict women from the franchise for similar functional reasons, considering the female franchise is positively associated with increased government spending and legislative restrictions. Their political participation I would conceptualise as being adequately met through the votes of their male relatives with voting rights (who should preferably vote in the interests of their families) and through extra-electoral channels which all people legitimately of course can engage with. I note again here that this is IF a state has elections, I have no "in principle" objections to autocracy.

Do you support freedom of religion

Depends on what you mean by freedom of religion. I affirm the teaching of the Church from St Augustine down that a mans assent to religion cannot and should not be forced (forcing someone to be of a certain religious does not constitute having the faith, and so is worthless), and in that sense I believe that people should be free to believe what they will without restrictions being imposed on them for belief.

However, I also believe that man has a moral obligation to the true religion and that God is ultimate sovereign over everything. In that sense separation of Church from state (as the Americans understand it, Australia has no separation of Church and state [its simply neutral with regards to different religions]) is anathema to my position, and it is preferable for the state to uphold and support the Catholic religion. Where prudence dictates, or to avoid an evil or fulfil a good its perfectly reasonable I would say for tolerance to be granted to other religions, but where it is not for whatever reasons imposing restrictions on otherwise religious public activity (not belief) and agency is perfectly fine with me.

With regards to the American constitution and the Bill of Rights, being Australian, and Australia having a different constitution and no bill of rights whatsoever, and myself having little familiarity with those documents, I don't feel qualified to respond to your query.

 

[Tahuti]

You're the first person I've ever encountered who labels themselves as Reactionary. I thought it was normally a term of abuse used by so-called progressives.

How true is my impression?

I'm not entirely sure about the exact origins of the word, though 'reactionary' is etymologically just the opposite of 'revolutionary'. In this case, the likely candidate implied by 'revolutionary' would be those of the French revolution. The early opponents of the French revolution were labelled Counter-Revolutionaries. Then reactionary likely followed shortly after. At the time, the term could very well be used by those that supported the Ancien Regime.

Now, no Reactionary truly wants to bring back the Ancien Regime prior to 1789 1:1. For instance, I strongly disagree with the centralisations undertaken by Louis XIV and I am of the conviction that this allowed the French revolution to become as strong as it did. Reactionary thought, in whatever type or strain, usually is never about restoring a political entity or public policy alone (though some political entities are perceived as more friendly than others, naturally) but about resurrecting certain values. Values like bravery, erudition and solidarity. Reactionaries believe these have declined and are declining as we speak.

 

[plarq]

I see it as a match between the greatest men and women of Western Civilisation vs. those of Islamic civilisation. I don't see Islam as innately evil force in need to be destroyed for the good of mankind, though we are definitely destinied to face Islam again and again as long as both exist. Today, we (the West) face a likewise battle. It ought to be one without hate, for we should not intend to destroy our respected rivals.




Yes. That being said, I am personally an 'omnist' (that is, the belief that all religions contain the truth to a significant degree). What is most important is not that a governance is rests on a particular religion, but on divine power in general.

Interesting, do you think your stands really in line with traditional thoughts? Although I do see some historical references that people of two religions fight under the same banner (e.g. El Cid), it looks like an alliance of convenience, and do not carry enough moral and jurisdictional rights.

That is dependent on the country in question. That being said, in regards to freedom of religion, I think plenty of new religious movements like scientology are deserving of scorn and have yet to prove they truly are divinely inspired. At the very least, their practice should be discouraged.

I felt a similar dislike towards the new religious movements to a degree. Basically they don't offer much new stuff, yet trying to carve off a chunk of followers from other groups. Basically you have to do a little bit scamming and pyramid scheming. However, seeing religious groups as more or less advocates trying to get money from various groups, we should not restrict the privilege of preaching to a selected few sects who happen to be the mainstream.

 

[Tahuti]

Interesting, do you think your stands really in line with traditional thoughts?

At the time, there are doubtlessy many people - both high and low - who believe they were fighting a battle with the destruction of religion as the end game. Maybe that time will come. The most important aspect of such holy wars - holy these are most definitely are - is that these form a release valve for our most base instincts. Wars are inevitable because of this. The best thing we can make of this is turn them into virtues of bravery as far we possibly can.

I felt a similar dislike towards the new religious movements to a degree. Basically they don't offer much new stuff, yet trying to carve off a chunk of followers from other groups. Basically you have to do a little bit scamming and pyramid scheming. However, seeing religious groups as more or less advocates trying to get money from various groups, we should not restrict the privilege of preaching to a selected few sects who happen to be the mainstream.

I agree. There are doubtlessy new religious movements that offer genuine wisdom, though they are rare. René Guenon is a name of note to start with. Not all reactionaries are followers of him, though has a strong influence on many reactionaries. Part of his book The Crisis of the Modern World offers an explanation on how to make the demarcation between genuine religions and fake ones. I will oversimplify his thesis on the demarcation between true religions and pseudo-religions, though essentially, he states all genuine religions (this includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) are creative forces but all fake religions are negative reactions that merely aspire to destroy the achievements of the true religions out of spite.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

First thing: respect. I'm much too tired of reactionaries who masquerade as liberals and progressives, a bit of honesty on the subject is refreshing. I appreciate spades who call themselves spades.

Now, question: In what specific ways do you object toward what you see as "progress?" Relatedly, how do you evaluate what is progressive and bad, versus what is traditional and good, or what of the past is worthy of emulation?

 

[Jehoshua]

Now, question: In what specific ways do you object toward what you see as "progress?" Relatedly, how do you evaluate what is progressive and bad, versus what is traditional and good, or what of the past is worthy of emulation?

Well obviously I don't object to what I see as positive progress, since if things go in a way I like its perfectly fine with me . Likewise not all that is "traditional" is good. To say all that is in the past is bad, is just as erroneous as saying all that is new is good.

The issue with progressivism then is more with the conceptualisation of progress that it proposes, and the particular ideological narrative that informs that "progressive" thinking. The first aspect of this is that progress in the social sphere is defined linearly and in moral terms, and that the particular liberal telos is defined as the inevitable and only way forward, as something which everyone and everything will eventually arrive. Not only is this incredibly naïve and historically illiterate (just look at the 20th century, progress is certainly not linear or singular, and civilisation can most certainly regress) this view completely ignores the real goods of culture (western culture and civilisation in most of our cases) by which people derive meaning and within which people understand their relationship with the world and the social order. This "progressive" view also rather naively ignores the obvious "grotesqueries" of human nature, in which our ideals and desires don't always turn out to result in an end which is all good in favour of a view of men as tabula rasa (blank slates), a position which is in scientific terms equivalent to those who persist in believing the earth is flat.

Tradition, by which I mean a custom which 1) makes a moral claim and 2) establishes a bond among those who observe it by 3) allowing the members of the community to collectively recognize some objective good in a culturally particularized way, serves as the architecture within which society functions and the vehicle by which people come to understand the world, and their place in it. It is very important and should be highly valued. The particularly modernist impulse attacks this to the detriment of social order resulting not only in cultural degradation by which effectively is a diminution and levelling of all culture through an attempt to make all cultured equivalent (via cosmopolitan universalism) and attaching value primarily to propositional ideological values (to which one might assent ones will towards, but to which someone can't really "belong") but also results in general social and moral confusion and profound personal isolation. This I think is why we see people try to find "identity" through various other channels, such as through subcultures.

 

[Tahuti]

First thing: respect. I'm much too tired of reactionaries who masquerade as liberals and progressives, a bit of honesty on the subject is refreshing. I appreciate spades who call themselves spades.

Thanks!

Btw, do you mean by 'liberals' classical liberals?

Now, question: In what specific ways do you object toward what you see as "progress?" Relatedly, how do you evaluate what is progressive and bad, versus what is traditional and good, or what of the past is worthy of emulation?

Reactionary thought is more of an attitude than a movement. And as noted earlier, isn't as much about resurrecting institutions as resurrecting values. While resurrecting certain institutions - such as aristocracy, the family and monarchy - will help nurture values reactionaries hold dear, like courage, fortitude and erudition, it are the values that make the premodern world good and better than the status quo, at least in the countries that one can consider to be part of Western civilisation.

Now, I'm positively surprised I didn't get questions like 'OMG why u want Spanish Inquisition back?'. These are not the kinds of things of the premodern reactionaries wish to resurrect. If anything, these were massive errors and displays of moral failure which ultimately enabled the 'Enlightenment' to recast such events as necessary results of the premodern wisdom and convince the world to think in a false dilemma in which being a revolutionary is the only way to be convincingly opposed. You have faced a lot of questions like 'OMG why u want to kill millions of people' and I think these issues are comparable.

So we are primarily in the reactionary thing for improving the moral character of humans or at least ourselves. There is no point of improving society through technology, capitalism and government support and 'progress' in general when it makes us lazy and selfish (This is not to say I am opposed to technology, capitalism or government intervention, rather, I argue for a more complicated view that is not uncoditionally positive or negative). As for the misdeeds perpetrated during the Crusades, the Inquisition and other events that occurred in Pre-Modern times, I'd say that the Enlightenment has utterly failed to end humans' ability to commit those misdeeds. Far from being a form of chrono-whataboutism, I argue that the gravest atrocities in history are the result of human failure in general and that no political ideology is able to contain it completely. I still think that overall, the humans of the past were stronger and more social individuals of today, especially in Europe and the Americas and that it is that we wish to return.

 

[jackelgull]

Well, it seems your vocabulary is much more advanced than mine, but it seems that you are arguing that reactionaries, or at least you believe that people back then were better than people are now. How do you justify that?

I mean, on the surface of it, humanity seems to be in a better place than it was centuries ago. I might be willing to be believe, that as a whole the moral character of mankind hasn't really changed- the issues in which the moral failures of humanity are displayed have though. But I don't believe people of the past were any better than those of today. If you want to argue that they were more social, I would argue that it is the exact opposite- we, this generation, interact more with each other than the people of the past did. We just don't do it face to face, but through social media.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Reactionary thought, in whatever type or strain, usually is never about restoring a political entity or public policy alone (though some political entities are perceived as more friendly than others, naturally) but about resurrecting certain values. Values like bravery, erudition and solidarity. Reactionaries believe these have declined and are declining as we speak.

I don't understand how a return to monarchy / aristocracy would strengthen those values in a meaningful way. However, I can see how monarchy /aristocracy are ingredients of a fantasy world ruled by those values. Look for instance at Lord of The Rings. Much stronger values. And kings!
But for my next question let's assume those values do profit from it. If it could be shown that another kind of governing system did even more so - would you support it?

 

[Jehoshua]

Well, it seems your vocabulary is much more advanced than mine, but it seems that you are arguing that reactionaries, or at least you believe that people back then were better than people are now. How do you justify that?

Can't speak for Kaiserguard, but I most certainly don't think people were "better" than people now intrinsically. People are always and everywhere inclined to the same vices. My position is that the social order of western civilisation to sum it up, is currently in a degraded state of civilizational decline due to the perfidious influence of liberal ideology divorcing society from tradition, and as a consequence of that ideological schools numerous problematic contradictions.

 

[Atlantic Pacf.]

Let's say that the social order that you desire comes into being tomorrow, by magic. What do you predict would be your social status, and would you expect to feel satisfied in it?

What are you currently doing in order to bring said social order into being in real life? Are there any organized movements or whatnot that are attempting to do so?

Kaiserguard, you had stated at various times that you work in the IT industry. It seems that many people in said industry have reactionary views, and describe themselves as the "Dark Enlightenment." Do you consider yourself part of it, and if not, what are your views on it?

 

[jackelgull]

So your emphasis is on tradition, am I correct? Then what traditions do reactionaries such as yourself hold dear, that you feel are being destroyed?

And do you want to protect all traditions? I don't know if the traditions of Australia are that awesome that sticking to them is the best case scenario in all ages, but America used to have a tradition of racism and slavery. I certainly don't want to keep that.

And in India, the caste system and child marriages are two traditions I'd rather not keep either.