I am not a neoreactionary, so you’ll have to find somebody else to argue their side—shouldn’t be a problem, since you mentioned that they can’t shut up :-P
However I’ll explain why I find their ideology interesting. The thing is, in contemporary political discourse in the West democracy became a sacred cow. One could talk about better or worse implementations, point out issues with specific governments or policies, etc. but the notion that democracy is the best and you should always try to have as much of it as possible seems to be sanctified, enshrined, and maybe even embalmed :-)
And that is a bit of a problem. It’s a problem mostly because democracy (even in an idealized state) is not perfect and has systemic faults and shortcomings. Discussing those is… difficult because of the sacred-cow status of democracy. Trying to mitigate and ameliorate them is also difficult because that usually involves something other than “moar democracy!” and publicly suggesting it can be less than wise.
Note that debates about the merits of democracy were common in the XVIII and XIX century, but are almost extinct now (again: in the West. Asia is quite different in that respect).
And me, I don’t like blinders but I do like sacred-cow steaks :-)
I also find neoreaction interesting, or rather I did while the idea was new for me; later it became rather repetitive. But I do care about this “map reflecting the territory” thing more than I care about things being interesting.
in contemporary political discourse in the West democracy became a sacred cow
Maybe I fail to appreciate this, living in eastern Europe, having communists and nazis in parliament, hearing “democracy doesn’t work”, “Jews are controlling everything”, “vaccination causes autism” et cetera on a regular basis.
And I guess that in Russia, 90% of what neoreactionaries believe is a mainstream opinion, and you just have to turn on your TV to hear it directly from Putin. So I have a problem empathising with the argument by bravery.
I agree that everything should be open to debate, there should be no dogmas. But there is a difference between saying that, and embracing reversed stupidity. I’d rather know what makes some democracies work and other democracies fail. For example, Switzerland does a few things that neoreactionaries would agree with, despite having more democracy than any other country I know.
hearing “democracy doesn’t work”, “Jews are controlling everything”, “vaccination causes autism” et cetera on a regular basis.
The first item in your list is relevant to NRx, but I’m not sure about the rest. Are you implying that from “these people believe in A” you can conclude that “they also must believe in B, C, and D”?
And I guess that in Russia, 90% of what neoreactionaries believe is a mainstream opinion, and you just have to turn on your TV to hear it directly from Putin.
I don’t think that is true.
It looks like you have a tendency to put all the people and all the views you dislike into one big bucket and say “They are all the same”. That’s not a very good idea.
I’d rather know what makes some democracies work and other democracies fail.
You are not interested in what makes some political systems work and others fail..? :-)
It looks like you have a tendency to put all the people and all the views you dislike into one big bucket and say “They are all the same”.
That’s why I said 90%. There are also obvious differences: Putin still keeps a democratic facade in Russia, he supports Orthodox Christianity, and ethnic Russians are considered the superior race. As far as I know, NRs would abhor even pretend-democracy, would support religion but not Christianity because that inevitably leads to progressivism; and would support an idea of superior ethnic group but probably only if it includes themselves.
But they could have a nice debate about how Western civilization is weak, decadent, and doomed to failure; how giving rights to homosexuals is obviously stupid; how religion is necessary for a strong society; etc.
You are not interested in what makes some political systems work and others fail..?
You still haven’t convinced me that Switzerland is a failure. I also don’t know an example of a real country without elections where I would be tempted to move. Shall we discuss fictional evidence?
would support religion but not Christianity because that inevitably leads to progressivism
Depending on which neoreactionary. The neoreactionaries I’m familiar with, admittedly a tiny subset, are pro-traditional, i.e., non-progressive Christianity.
I also don’t know an example of a real country without elections where I would be tempted to move.
How many real countries do you know without elections, period? I here the UAE is rather nice.
But they could have a nice debate about how Western civilization is weak, decadent, and doomed to failure; how giving rights to homosexuals is obviously stupid; how religion is necessary for a strong society; etc.
That’s part of what I mean by saying that you put everyone you dislike into one big bucket. Let me link again the post I already mentioned. I don’t notice it talking about homosexuals or religion, do you? Do you expect the author to broadly agree with Putin?
You still haven’t convinced me that Switzerland is a failure.
I am not a neoreactionary, so you’ll have to find somebody else to argue their side—shouldn’t be a problem, since you mentioned that they can’t shut up :-P
However I’ll explain why I find their ideology interesting. The thing is, in contemporary political discourse in the West democracy became a sacred cow. One could talk about better or worse implementations, point out issues with specific governments or policies, etc. but the notion that democracy is the best and you should always try to have as much of it as possible seems to be sanctified, enshrined, and maybe even embalmed :-)
And that is a bit of a problem. It’s a problem mostly because democracy (even in an idealized state) is not perfect and has systemic faults and shortcomings. Discussing those is… difficult because of the sacred-cow status of democracy. Trying to mitigate and ameliorate them is also difficult because that usually involves something other than “moar democracy!” and publicly suggesting it can be less than wise.
Note that debates about the merits of democracy were common in the XVIII and XIX century, but are almost extinct now (again: in the West. Asia is quite different in that respect).
And me, I don’t like blinders but I do like sacred-cow steaks :-)
I also find neoreaction interesting, or rather I did while the idea was new for me; later it became rather repetitive. But I do care about this “map reflecting the territory” thing more than I care about things being interesting.
Maybe I fail to appreciate this, living in eastern Europe, having communists and nazis in parliament, hearing “democracy doesn’t work”, “Jews are controlling everything”, “vaccination causes autism” et cetera on a regular basis.
And I guess that in Russia, 90% of what neoreactionaries believe is a mainstream opinion, and you just have to turn on your TV to hear it directly from Putin. So I have a problem empathising with the argument by bravery.
I agree that everything should be open to debate, there should be no dogmas. But there is a difference between saying that, and embracing reversed stupidity. I’d rather know what makes some democracies work and other democracies fail. For example, Switzerland does a few things that neoreactionaries would agree with, despite having more democracy than any other country I know.
The first item in your list is relevant to NRx, but I’m not sure about the rest. Are you implying that from “these people believe in A” you can conclude that “they also must believe in B, C, and D”?
I don’t think that is true.
It looks like you have a tendency to put all the people and all the views you dislike into one big bucket and say “They are all the same”. That’s not a very good idea.
You are not interested in what makes some political systems work and others fail..? :-)
That’s why I said 90%. There are also obvious differences: Putin still keeps a democratic facade in Russia, he supports Orthodox Christianity, and ethnic Russians are considered the superior race. As far as I know, NRs would abhor even pretend-democracy, would support religion but not Christianity because that inevitably leads to progressivism; and would support an idea of superior ethnic group but probably only if it includes themselves.
But they could have a nice debate about how Western civilization is weak, decadent, and doomed to failure; how giving rights to homosexuals is obviously stupid; how religion is necessary for a strong society; etc.
You still haven’t convinced me that Switzerland is a failure. I also don’t know an example of a real country without elections where I would be tempted to move. Shall we discuss fictional evidence?
Depending on which neoreactionary. The neoreactionaries I’m familiar with, admittedly a tiny subset, are pro-traditional, i.e., non-progressive Christianity.
How many real countries do you know without elections, period? I here the UAE is rather nice.
That’s part of what I mean by saying that you put everyone you dislike into one big bucket. Let me link again the post I already mentioned. I don’t notice it talking about homosexuals or religion, do you? Do you expect the author to broadly agree with Putin?
I do not believe I have tried.