Ask a Reactionary

I have gathered that a big argument that reactionaries have is that monarchism helps culture, then what is culture and why is it so desirable?

Culture is the product of human creativity. However, it also carries our identities and communicates our purpose in life, which makes it desirable.

(bolding mine)
So there haven't been any reactionary totalitarian monarchs?

By definition, no. Totalitarianism has a democratic aspect to it that makes it particularly dangerous: Democracy is not just elections, but also the fusion of citizens and state.
 
Then isn't totalirianism what you want? It runs counter to individualism, which is the separation of the individual from authority.

And we still have culture today. We have more culture/ products of human creativity than we did during the monarchial age. This did not result from monarchism or democracy, this is the product of the widespread availability of paper and pen and the ability to get the book out there.
 
Then isn't totalirianism what you want? It runs counter to individualism, which is the separation of the individual from authority.

Individualism is best contradistinguished from communitarianism, not totalitarianism. Extreme individualism may actually disorganise society to the point totalitarian takeover is relatively easy.

And we still have culture today. We have more culture/ products of human creativity than we did during the monarchial age. This did not result from monarchism or democracy, this is the product of the widespread availability of paper and pen and the ability to get the book out there.

'More culture' in the quantitative sense, not in a qualitative sense.
 
Really? How much do you read? I can confidently say that All the King's Men can stand shoulder to shoulder with any of the great classics written under a monarchical system, even those by Shakespeare.

I read a lot.

I also never said modern times cannot bring work of art superior to that ever made before.
 
What are your thoughts on a permanent regent appointed by some sort of democratic politics?

He may be good, as may any democratically elected leader. The problem of democratic is that these inevitably self-destruct leading to anarchy/become totalitarian. However controls the media controls politics in democracies, and since it be accounted who precisely controls the media. Essentially, from the outside, democracy is rule by the people, though in pracatice becomes rule by the unseen.


I would for Israel to become a monarchy, and it would help solve the Palestinian conflict (since it would allow Israel to retain its original Jewish identity regardless of what is the fashion of the moment is). However, ultimately, the same problem with democracy is found, though to a slightly lesser extent than democracies with an elected presidency.

Article said:
Such a constitutional monarchy is quite as compatible with modern parliamentary democracy as are the monarchies of Holland and England. But there would remain a fundamental difference between Israel and the European monarchies, which exist as a matter of historical happenstance. For Israel to establish its claim to be a Jewish state”the core issue of contention between Israel and many of its Muslim neighbors”it must do so in the unique way specified by the Bible and the undivided view of Jewish tradition.

I would disagree and say it extends to all monarchies. In that I mean that the monarchy is the basis for citizenship of that country, where the other nationals are the monarch's subject. By doing away with any monarchy, the society over which the monarch ruled over becomes decapitated and subject to majority whims.
 
He may be good, as may any democratically elected leader. The problem of democratic is that these inevitably self-destruct leading to anarchy/become totalitarian. However controls the media controls politics in democracies, and since it be accounted who precisely controls the media. Essentially, from the outside, democracy is rule by the people, though in pracatice becomes rule by the unseen.
While the media problem might be present, I wonder if something like the Irish Senate (as initially conceived) could work.

The parliament or prime minister, or some combination there off, appoints a regent from outside the political class, with the weight of public opinion and expectation that this shall represent the best the nation has to offer.

It's one thing that's always odd, I find, about reactionaries. Not enough Burke in their diet. Ironically, they look for ingenious devices rather then the changes in society a lot.
 
It's one thing that's always odd, I find, about reactionaries. Not enough Burke in their diet. Ironically, they look for ingenious devices rather then the changes in society a lot.

I'm actually well aware of how the changes in society made certain political institutions unstable or toppled them entirely. Which is why reactionary thought is perhaps more of a cultural than a political ideal.
 
While the media problem might be present, I wonder if something like the Irish Senate (as initially conceived) could work.

The parliament or prime minister, or some combination there off, appoints a regent from outside the political class, with the weight of public opinion and expectation that this shall represent the best the nation has to offer.

It's one thing that's always odd, I find, about reactionaries. Not enough Burke in their diet. Ironically, they look for ingenious devices rather then the changes in society a lot.

The bolded part seems to me to be the problem.
 
Trusting a group of politicians (who are almost inevitably from a certain social group - white, male, public school, short hair, law career...) to choose someone from 'outside the political class' is wishful thinking - their choices are inevitably constrained because they're not representative of the rest of society. If you look at the Irish presidents since 1938, almost all of them have held elected office before becoming president, all of them have degrees, and most are lawyers. The first and the last, who seem to break the pattern in a small way, are both academics.
 
Trusting a group of politicians (who are almost inevitably from a certain social group - white, male, public school, short hair, law career...) to choose someone from 'outside the political class' is wishful thinking - their choices are inevitably constrained because they're not representative of the rest of society. If you look at the Irish presidents since 1938, almost all of them have held elected office before becoming president, all of them have degrees, and most are lawyers. The first and the last, who seem to break the pattern in a small way, are both academics.

I usually prefer having politicians drawn from a military background, instead of a legal or academic background.
 
You have never experienced military rule, then.
 
Okay guys, here is an update, considering Tailleskangaru in some other thread noted my ideological shift.

My views have been shifting towards Right-Libertarianism and support for electoral democracy tempered by constitutional monarchy, rule of law and/or aristocracy, while at the same time maintaining a liking towards tradition, organicism (which I believe is not necessarily incompatible with Libertarian individual rights) and monarchy. Considering such states as the Roman Republic, electoral systems that some might label democracy are often an essential element in Western polities.

While I admire religion, I have also grown more negative in my views regarding Christianity and Islam, as I consider universalist religions like these to be literal precursors of Stalinism and Fascism, and of pseudoreligions such as Scientology, even though at the same time, not everything Christian or Islamic is automatically bad, their scriptures being a medium containing wisdom borrowed from Greek, Roman, Jewish and Persian sources.

So I'm probably a reactionary with a distinctly libertarian flavour, although I am still quite hostile to anarcho-capitalism for being insensitive to cultural issues and because I am willing to support some government intervention in the economy.
 
Can you provide examples where the Bible contains wisdom borrowed from Greek, Roman, and Persian sources? The Bible was written by Jews, so being Jewish is a given. Or where you talking about the volumes of writings that scholars and theologians have added to the Christian religion?
 
Can you provide examples where the Bible contains wisdom borrowed from Greek, Roman, and Persian sources? The Bible was written by Jews, so being Jewish is a given. Or where you talking about the volumes of writings that scholars and theologians have added to the Christian religion?

Well, Judaism was originally polytheist with monotheist tendencies (like most ethnic religions of the time, really) and only became more clearly monotheist when it entered contact with Zoroastrianism from Persia.

Greek and Roman influences should be a no brainer, given that the Holy Land was under Roman control. There was one Jewish writer who fused Judaism with Greek ideas and became an important philosophical precursor to Christianity, though sadly, his name slipped from my mind (maybe Plotinus could help).

If all of this things didn't happen, there would be no Christianity and no Islam. Period.
 
Well, the US revolution shows undeniable Islamic influence, if the Turks hadn't closed many trade routes to the East the Spanish wouldn't have sailed West and there wouldn't have been English colonies in what is now Unitedstatesia. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom