With all due respect, KG, what is the point of this thread? You won't be able to convince anyone to hold your views. They'll just try to convince you, and you aren't willing to budge either. That's why I keep half of my political beliefs to myself.
I did not start this thread with the goal of converting others to our POV, but to dispel misunderstandings about these beliefs.
I'm mystified why anyone who isn't part of it already would want to support a self-perpetuating exclusive system based on inherited wealth and privilege.
Why does anyone?
I think the people who are most likely to worth of your trust are your family. Not always, but most of the most the time. Think of the reactionary attitude as one in which the idea of family is central to every political and economic facet.
I never understood why everyone said this. Why would creating a solidified hierarchy of people and investing all the power into a single man/upper class be good for all? Even with the pretext of benevolence?
It implies that one man can know what is best for everyone, no matter the diversity of the population. That sounds impossible and improbable. Along with of course the issues concerning creating classes with disparity in power and the inequality that would come from that.
In economic terms, early modern societies were actually more egalitarian. This is not to say we support early modern society because of its egalitarianism, or that anyone should do so. Rather, the fact that early modern societies were more egalitarian in economic matters are good from a perspective of promoting good values. The massive disparities in wealth we see today are completely arbitrary. No one can convince Bill Gates worked billions of times harder or better than the average minimum wage worker. Yet hypercapitalist societies propagate greed and selfishness, whereas - to ascend to nobility or maintain respectability within the nobility - one has to be brave.
Shouldn't everyone have access to this aristocratic upbringing if its so good?
Not necessarily. I have frequently made a connection between aristocracy and military and political duties. Those that have a knack for scholarship may do best to instill those values to their kids, and that may not necessarily the best path for aristocrats, and vice versa, to name just one example.
Kasierguard: How do you reconcile the political system you say you want (medieval semi/sub-feudal monarchy 800-1000) with the completely different economic and social contexts that exist today?
We don't want to resurrect political entities 1:1. I consider myself a loyalist to the house of Orange-Nassau even though the Netherlands wasn't even considered a culturally distinct region back then, to name one example. That said, I want to keep most traditional institutions to the greatest degree possible, and even bring some back. That said, while worthy as a goal in itself, the greatest prize lies in the resurrection of the values these bring. At diverse people, I think the man and women of the thousand years ago were of stronger moral character than people today, and that is perhaps the foremost thing I wish to bring back.
How would you characterize true religion?
Anything that is not a pseudoreligion.
Isnt this somewhat contradictory? Absolute monarch in decentralised country? What is the pool of people these aristocrats are going to elect from? You are of course aware of the debiliating effects of aristocratic intermeriage.
No. One person, even if he legally has the power to do anything, won't be able to do anything, being a human. He will delegate it others he knows personally. The result is a more human governance, compared to the corporate bureaucracy modern democracies are today.
You reject the divine right of kings so on what basis you would like to lay this absolute power?
Will of the aristocracy.
And how do you want to achieve that?
By making sure good people of good character - regardless of ideology - outlast modern society.
Who are your favorite traditionalist conservative/reactionary writers, and what are your favorite books on the subject? Any thoughts about Edmund Burke in particular?
Currently, I read Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's
Liberty or Equality. You will find recurring threads between my statements on CFC (especially in this thread) as well as Jehoshua's with his words. Oswald Spengler, Joseph de Maistre and René Guenon are also fairly standard fare among self-described reactionaries. I'm frankly more familiar with these writers than Edmund Burke, though I suspect Edmund Burke will be more accessible to would-be reactionaries in the Anglosphere than the other names I have mentioned. I think René Guenon's
Crisis of the Modern World is my favourite book on the subject.
While not self-identified reactionaries or even overtly political philosophers, I'd like to give honourable mentions to E.F. Schumacher and Nassim Nicholas Taleb for their books
Small is Beautiful and
Antifragile respectively. They frequently come with insights that reactionaries find appealing and interesting. Reactionaries also tend to respect the insights of the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Antonio Gramsci on an analytical level, while being critical of Libertarianism and Marxism itself.
When societies change, as they inevitably will, how should that occur? Do you support gradual, "organic" change of the existing order and generally oppose revolutionary approaches, or would you want an abrupt change to a system with a powerful aristocracy and/or monarch? And do you have any opinions on what the appropriate systems would be for countries that have only existed under republican forms of government (e.g. most of the Americas)?
No society is ever going to stay static. What is important that traditional institutions are honoured and if necessary restored. What is even more important is that a society stays true to the values embodied by its ancestral institutions. The problem is we have undertaken many 'reforms' and ultimately shed with our humanity and cardinal virtues in the process. As I noted earlier, and probably will mention a lot again for clarification, my personal perspective is that those of reactionary persuasian must be stronger than modern society itself, and be present and alive to watch its collapse. This may not happen in my lifetime. The path of a reactionary is for a large part inward.
Is the point of having a single figurehead important because that head is also the scapegoat for all the faults of the current social change?
No.
