Ask a Reactionary

So... what's to stop some ambitious neo-fascist regarding the world as the natural national community? I know they don't. But why couldn't they?

National, to be pedantic, just refers to where you're born, doesn't it? And aren't we all born in the world?
No. In the fascist philosophy, nation refers to a comprehensive world-view or world-experience formed by linguistic and cultural expectations. The experience of being a Russian is fundamentally unlike being an Italian, due to these shared cultural perceptions that become an internalized part of the individuals experience.
 
No. In the fascist philosophy, nation refers to a comprehensive world-view or world-experience formed by linguistic and cultural expectations. The experience of being a Russian is fundamentally unlike being an Italian, due to these shared cultural perceptions that become an internalized part of the individuals experience.

Would perhaps be that Fascist universalism roughly stretches a middle ground between universalism and particularism with its nationalism? Fascism arguably originated from a time when sub-national stopped being important to common folk's identity for the first time.
 
No. In the fascist philosophy, nation refers to a comprehensive world-view or world-experience formed by linguistic and cultural expectations. The experience of being a Russian is fundamentally unlike being an Italian, due to these shared cultural perceptions that become an internalized part of the individuals experience.

Speaking as a Terran nationalist, isn't it true that we all share some linguistic and cultural expectations?

I'll admit that the Russian experience is different from that of the Italian. But I disagree that's it's fundamentally different. (Linguistically, for example, Russian and Italian are both Indo-European, and human, languages.)

Everything would seem to indicate the contrary.
 
More to the point, the experience of living in London might be different to that of living in New York, but I'm unconvinced that the difference there is important while the difference between living in London and Newcastle is apparently not.
 
More to the point, the experience of living in London might be different to that of living in New York, but I'm unconvinced that the difference there is important while the difference between living in London and Newcastle is apparently not.

If nothing else, a Londoner is more likely to understand the language spoken in NY than in Newcastle...
 
More to the point, the experience of living in London might be different to that of living in New York, but I'm unconvinced that the difference there is important while the difference between living in London and Newcastle is apparently not.
The Anglosphere always posed a problem for Nationalism, yeah.

But it would be harder to argue the point that the experience of being from London is more different than being from Paris.

I'd also make the point that this emphasis on "living in" is distinct from the Fascist conception of "being shaped by."
 
Okay mods, close this thread. I don't think I can describe my self as a 'Reactionary' any longer, and if somebody emerges on CFC who does, they can always create another such thread.

Please let this thread die in peace and do not reply further, unless it is announce the thread's closure.
 
Fair enough.

Animal life, including humanity is constantly evolving. The values that made European nations great in the 16th century probably no longer do so today. We - humanity - have grown drastically in terms of population and we have been altered significantly by technology. Some of it may be bad, others are useful. Especially advances in medicine and sanitation have managed to drastically increase our numbers. And thus, it is good that we have made changes to the political structure.

Compared to Jehoshua, I was quite secular back then. Like him, I am still strongly opposed to the rejection of religious and spiritual ideas as propagated by such figures as Dawkins, yet I have grown to be equally critical of religious dogma that Jehoshua promoted in this thread. The Charlie Hebdo attacks were a rather life-changing event for me, that prompted this particular change of thought. The description that best describes my religious views nowadays would be 'transtheism': The belief that god or gods arguably exist, yet humanity exists besides them, not in subordination to them.

Last but not least, traditional gender roles, which served their purpose in the absence of alternatives as was the case a few centuries earlier IMO, are to be considered a retrograde force nowadays, that prevents humanity from reaching its full potential. This is not to say I have become a feminist, though I do think that with human overpopulation becoming a problem in combination with the widespread availability of birth control measures, neither male privileges nor hetrosexism can be justified any longer. Not in the affluent countries at least.

I don't regret my period of being one that believed in Reactionary thought, though. It was a highly educational experience that gave me some lasting insights. I still continue to have viewpoints that intersect with Reactionary thought (including my criticisms of Democracy), in the same way I might hold similar views compared to Libertarianism. A few years earlier, I held Libertarian viewpoints, and that was a similarly educational experience, even if I no longer consider myself a Libertarian.
 
What about Jehoshua?

EDIT: I mean, what if he still wants this thread open?
 
Are you still a Monarchist (which frankly has me confused)?

Not dogmatically. It is still better than democracy.

And why don't you see any benefits to democracy (which has me even more confused)?

Democracy is a system of BS talk and of sleepwalking. The one who attracts the votes and alienates the fewest gets power, even if they are not capable leaders or policymakers at all. Thus, democracy is naturally given towards manipulation by the media and rewarding those that talk typical BS. I still believe that, even if I would not describe myself as a reactionary anymore.

Anarcho-Syndalicalists believe in something called direct action. It is a lot more intruiging than electoral democracy, and while they say it is a means of democracy, it can be used differently. I'd say that direct action is the only way of true political change. And medieval monarchs and aristocrats were pretty good at direct action too.
 
Oh, I see. It's just the current electoral democracies that you object to, not democracy in principle? Well, most people would agree with your misgivings, I'm sure. And the Internet could be about to deliver some changes on how electoral democracy is implemented.

And yeah, I veer towards anarcho-syndicalism myself. It's just that the current state of affairs looks to me remarkably like anarcho-syndicalism already. But then I have a jaundiced eye. Or a rather strange way of looking at things, more properly speaking.
 
Oh, I see. It's just the current electoral democracies that you object to, not democracy in principle?

It can work in very small groups, where one voice of dissent can overturn an entire debate. Nation-states are too large in terms of participants for democracy to actually work. Yet I do not think abolishing states is a solution.
 
All the ones we have at the moment, apparently.

You would agree they're not exactly perfect, wouldn't you? General elections are a bit of a pantomime and elected representatives don't represent their electorate very well.

Oh, and Kaiserguard no doubt has some more specific objections that I've forgotten. I think his position is that democracy only works at the local level. And not for the comparatively large and unwieldy national polities.
 
The only local democracies I know would be in ancient Greece. And they all got gobbled up by these 'states'. The end.
 
Back
Top Bottom