Ask a Reactionary

[Tahuti]

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)

Democracies suffer from a chronic lack of political willpower because of their large amounts of participants. They ultimately root for everything and for nothing and ultimately, nothing ever gets done. Ever.

Another major defect of democracy is its shallowness. Leaders and/or policies are picked for popularity and shallow ideas are perhaps also the easiest ones to argue.

Finally, since democratic government receive legitimacy from all, the flipside is that democratic governments can automatically involve all. Wars are no longer private but have to involve the entire populace. By contrast, non-democratic governments need a degree of self-suffiency that render such able to function independently of its citizens.

Friggin history, how does it work?

Interplay between individuals. Personalities and individual choices are the defining aspects of history. There are severe limits to how can systematise history.

 

[Linkman226]

Democracies suffer from a chronic lack of political willpower because of their large amounts of participants. They ultimately root for everything and for nothing and ultimately, nothing ever gets done. Ever.

So the US has never accomplished anything in the past ~300 years?

Another major defect of democracy is its shallowness. Leaders and/or policies are picked for popularity and shallow ideas are perhaps also the easiest ones to argue.

How is bloodline not more shallow?

Finally, since democratic government receive legitimacy from all, the flipside is that democratic governments can automatically involve all. Wars are no longer private but have to involve the entire populace. By contrast, non-democratic governments need a degree of self-suffiency that render such able to function independently of its citizens.

I don't even know what this means. Are you aware that monarchist wars also involve everyone?

Interplay between individuals. Personalities and individual choices are the defining aspects of history. There are severe limits to how can systematise history.

Ah, Great Man theory. How quaint.

 

[Tahuti]

So the US has never accomplished anything in the past ~300 years?

Indeed, it accomplished the credit crunch and a host of other great thing. The problem is that in democracies, political issues pile up, until it is too late.

How is bloodline not more shallow?

It involves the personal beliefs of the monarch and his family.

I don't even know what this means. Are you aware that monarchist wars also involve everyone?

That is more the exception than the norm. The French revolutionary wars were arguably the first total wars. Do you want more?

Ah, Great Man theory. How quaint.

No, not really. An lowborn individual may throw a rock to a king, forever influence his way of thinking and changing the course of history. So I rather subscribe to Black Swan vision of history.

 

[Linkman226]

Indeed, it accomplished the credit crunch and a host of other great thing. The problem is that in democracies, political issues pile up, until it is too late.

Yea, man! Murica dindu nuffin. We are literally living like we were in 1776, except now we have a credit crunch on top of a harbor full of tea. Those darned rev'lushunaries, ruinin' errything!

It involves the personal beliefs of the monarch and his family.

You didn't answer the question. How is it not more shallow?

That is more the exception than the norm. The French revolutionary wars were arguably the first total wars. Do you want more?

I wanted you to elucidate what you mean by a war that involves everyone, something which you completely failed to do.

No, not really. An lowborn individual may throw a rock to a king, forever influence his way of thinking and changing the course of history. So I rather subscribe to Black Swan vision of history.

On a scale of 1 to Snoop Lion, how high are you?

 

[Agent327]

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.

That would be true if gays were about gender roles. But being gay isn't really about gender. So where's the gender confusion? And do you think that nurses should be female and doctors male? Or that a girl should not go into the army because that is all manly?

That is more the exception than the norm. The French revolutionary wars were arguably the first total wars. Do you want more?

Weren't the 'French revolutionary wars' a result of all those nasty monarchies wanting to squash the ugly revolution? Maybe you are thinking of the Napoleonic wars (monarch against monarchs)?

 

[Plotinus]

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.

Are most reactionaries male? Are there many women who think like this? Do you know any women who think they should lose the vote?

If, as I imagine, most people defending this ideology are male, doesn't that rather cast some suspicion on the objectivity of this viewpoint, since it defends male privilege and seeks to silence the female voice except as mediated or interpreted by men?

 

[Tahuti]

You didn't answer the question. How is it not more shallow?

Because it isn't a popularity contest. Monarchs only get deposed when they have made a really large amounts of enemies.

On a scale of 1 to Snoop Lion, how high are you?

Snoop Lion

That would be true if gays were about gender roles. But being gay isn't really about gender. So where's the gender confusion? And do you think that nurses should be female and doctors male? Or that a girl should not go into the army because that is all manly?

The gender confusion is that gender functions can be easily reversed by the swipe of thought.

To the other question, evolution.

Weren't the 'French revolutionary wars' a result of all those nasty monarchies wanting to squash the ugly revolution? Maybe you are thinking of the Napoleonic wars (monarch against monarchs)?

It wasn't really the efforts against revolutionary France, but rather the way how revolutionary fought it and this was possible because of its democratic constitution.

Are most reactionaries male? Are there many women who think like this? Do you know any women who think they should lose the vote?

If, as I imagine, most people defending this ideology are male, doesn't that rather cast some suspicion on the objectivity of this viewpoint, since it defends male privilege and seeks to silence the female voice except as mediated or interpreted by men?

I don't have hard data, though I'm quite certain most of its defenders are male. However, this is true for pretty much any political ideology - which kinda confirms the reactionary point of view that men are more politically inclined. While I don't know any women who think they should lose the vote, universal suffrage for women often ended up with women voting on political parties that opposed such, at least, this was what happened in the Netherlands. There are also women who support this particular line of thinking, but often emphasise other aspects of thought than do males, similar to how feminists form a female-oriented subset of leftism.

That said, talking about who should have the vote or not is slightly irrelevant, since I view the current political system to be so hopelessy corrupted that I do not vote myself. I might not have a vote myself in a reactionary world, though this is pretty something I wholeheartedly support, if stripping me and my peers of our voting rights helps selecting a more capable group of legislators.

 

[Agent327]

The gender confusion is that gender functions can be easily reversed by the swipe of thought.

That doesn't really answer my questions. Are you saying males should go Grr!Grrr! and hunt whiles the females stay at home and take care of the kiddies? Because that took a bit longer to change than the swipe of a thought. And it has little to do with being gay.

To the other question, evolution.

Evolution is the answer to what question?

It wasn't really the efforts against revolutionary France, but rather the way how revolutionary fought it and this was possible because of its democratic constitution.

So the monarchies didn't like democracy and wanted to squash it and democracy went all democratic, and you think this is a bad idea? That may be, but I thought France only instituted mass conscription because it was losing, not because it was 'democratic'.

 

[Borachio]

Here's the question:

And do you think that nurses should be female and doctors male? Or that a girl should not go into the army because that is all manly?

"Evolution" is the answer.

Nope. I didn't understand either.

Maybe evolution has selected for nurses to be female, doctors male, and girls to not join the army, because that's all manly. Not sure how, though.

Something about upper-body strength, maybe? Chimpanzees, and gorillas, have phenomenal upper-body strength, though. Maybe they should be doctors and soldiers.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Isn't the vision to which Kaiserguard prescribes lacks a monarch? Or, at least, a monarch with any meaningful power?

 

[Tahuti]

Are you saying males should go Grr!Grrr! and hunt whiles the females stay at home and take care of the kiddies?

If that's the way you want to put it, yes.

Evolution is the answer to what question?

Evolution to gender dimorphism and to society assigning gender roles accordingly. We argue this is not to result of oppression, but adaption to our limitation and capabilities.

So the monarchies didn't like democracy and wanted to squash it and democracy went all democratic, and you think this is a bad idea? That may be, but I thought France only instituted mass conscription because it was losing, not because it was 'democratic'.

Democracy made it possible for France to institute Mass Conscription.

Isn't the vision to which Kaiserguard prescribes lacks a monarch? Or, at least, a monarch with any meaningful power?

A monarch is quite central to my beliefs. Though I also believe it can and should be reasonably checked by customs and an aristocracy. It is a misconception checks and balances are a result of the Enlightenment, when such was pretty as old as government itself.

 

[Linkman226]

inb4 pseudoscientific garbage about gender roles

EDIT: Damn! ninja'd

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Democracy made it possible for France to institute Mass Conscription.

No, popular sovereignty did. People became citizens and bore civic responsibility, which made them eligible for the levee en masse. The democratic constitution was put on hold due to the war crisis until after 9 Thermidor.

 

[Tahuti]

No, popular sovereignty did. People became citizens and bore civic responsibility, which made them eligible for the levee en masse. The democratic constitution was put on hold due to the war crisis until after 9 Thermidor.

Thanks for the correction!

The notion of popular sovereignty is as alien to the reactionary as democracy is, however.

 

[Linkman226]

Are you a misanthrope? Why do you dislike popular opinion?

 

[Tahuti]

Are you a misanthrope?

No, but I feel sympathy for those who are.

Why do you dislike popular opinion?

Being popular doesn't subtract from that particular opinion's validity. However, attributing validity to its popularity in itself is a rather bad concept that threatens to corrupt everything into a popularity contest.

 

[Linkman226]

As compared to monarchy's unpopularity contest? While an idea is not automatically correct because it is popular, neither is it right because it is unpopular. How is your system any better in that regard?

 

[Agent327]

If that's the way you want to put it, yes.

I see. What about queens? (The QE II type, not the other kind)? Are they gender confused or magically protected from this by being monarchs?

Evolution to gender dimorphism and to society assigning gender roles accordingly. We argue this is not to result of oppression, but adaption to our limitation and capabilities.

So not tradition then. What gender roles should transsexuals have, in the reactionary view? And gays? Besides not marrying.

 

[Flying Pig]

No, popular sovereignty did. People became citizens and bore civic responsibility, which made them eligible for the levee en masse. The democratic constitution was put on hold due to the war crisis until after 9 Thermidor.

To be honest, there was nothing stopping a country from doing the same with much less justification - I'm inclined to be skeptical of the reports that the French conscript armies fought with heroic bravery because of their patriotism, but those are the rationale behind the connection of duty with obligation. I suspect sheer mass and disregard for the niceties of preventing losses was far more the reason why they did so well.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I suspect the mad bravery came from the fear that if they lost then their chains would be restored and that would be a fate worse than death, not from some innate "duty to die for the republic," although I imagine there was a certain amount of that as well.

Levee en masse was not popular, and the pressure it put on the sans culottes was a major driving force behind the 9 Thermidor coup. They soon regretted the loss of Robespierre, though, once the rage settled down and the war crisis disappeared.