Left and Right

“Neo-Reactionaries” drop all pretense: End democracy and bring back lords!

Like many fringe political movements, the neo-reactionaries are better at criticizing the established order and their ideological opponents than they are at offering any reasonable alternatives of their own.

By David Brin

Contrary Brin

See Scott Alexander’s critique of the neo-reactionary movement here.

Let me clip just one short part of Mr. Alexander’s devastating refutation of those who contend that absolute monarchy, following ancient principles, will outperform democracy, equal rights and all that decadent western crap. He starts by suggesting the simplest and most fair experimental test of rhe neo-reactionary assertion.  That we take a very homogeneous country and split it in half.
“One side gets a hereditary absolute monarch, whose rule is law and who is succeeded by his son and by his son’s son. The population is inculcated with neo-Confucian values of respect for authority, respect for the family, strict gender roles and cultural solidarity, but these values are supplemented by a religious ideal honoring the monarch as a near-god and the country as a specially chosen holy land. American cultural influence is banned on penalty of death; all media must be produced in-country, and missionaries are shot on site. The country’s policies are put in the hands of a group of technocratic nobles hand-picked by the king.
“The other side gets flooded with American missionaries preaching weird sects of Protestantism, and at the point of American guns is transformed into a parliamentary democracy. Its economy – again at the behest of American influence – becomes market capitalism, regulated by democracy and bureaucracy. It institutes a hundred billion dollar project to protect the environment, passes the strictest gun control laws in the world, develops a thriving gay culture, and elects a woman as President.
“Turns out this perfect controlled experiment actually happened. Let’s see how it turned out!”
zrx_image19Alexander then provides an image that speaks ten thousand words.
Some of you know the experiment to which he refers.  North and South Korea.

Categories: Left and Right

1 reply »

  1. The Ancien Regime is the reason we have modern politics, they bred a passive, Christian, urban (and urbane) civilization full of domesticated tax cattle who depended entirely on political authority and professionalized, bureaucratic violence for basic functions of society. The Ancien Regime was better than the modern world in many respects, but also responsible for it as a result of its own failings and weaknesses.

    Regarding N. Korea v. S. Korea: For one, N. Korea is ultra-leftist, ideologically, though it’s true they’re not really ‘Communist’. That has a huge influence on their decision making in both propaganda and real-world situations (the idea that rulers are utterly cynical, and know ‘the truth’, is Conspiracy Theory retardation). And I don’t think anyone claims that monarchy is automatically superior, rather that it has strong tendencies.

    The ancien regimes’ absolute monarchy was one that existed in a web of such traditions and monarchies, with strong influence amongst these royal houses. That is a totally different situation to the Koreas, and makes the comparison entirely facetious.

    And while South Korea is wealthier, that is not everything. It is also an atomized shithole where all the women are bitches and the government subsidized juvenile retardation and tech gadgets for the sake of political gain and export markets. The idea that wealthier/more people = better is simply not true. Most people are shit who pollute society, and their tastes are irrelevant, so who gives a shit how many of them exist and how tall their hideous parapets grow?

Leave a Reply