Neo-Reaction, and why the Left Always Wins

[Jacobtm]

Neo-Reactionary politics, the idea that liberal democracy is in fact an awful system of government and we should instead have something more closely resembling the monarchies of old, is mostly the work of one writer, Curtis Yarvin, who wrote on the blog Unqualified Reservations for several years.

Yarvin (nome de plume Mencius Moldbug) is a man who has read what seems like several libraries worth of material, and from older writings has synthesized what has become known as Neo Reactionary thought. His blog begins with the words:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Based on the writings of Thomas Carlyle, Henry Sumner Maine, and many others, he has constructed a broad-ranging critique of modern liberal democracy, arguing against it wholesale. He arguest that while technological progress has been undeniable, that our quality of governance has in fact taken a huge dive over the past few hundred years, and that while we have fancy toys, vaccines, and other things that make our quality of life better, these advances simply serve to mask our deteriorating quality of governance.

He believes that the left, liberals, progressives, basically always win. If you look back even 10 or 20 years ago, things that were at the time radical ideas are now accepted as normal. Witness Republican presidential candidates accepting legalized gay marriage. Even Obama and Clinton in 2007 didn't advocate for legal gay marriage, yet now we've moved so far left that even Republicans advocate for it.

Think back to any time in your life, have we moved further to the left or not? Republicans have managed a victory here and there, on tax rates or guns, but liberals have really been the defining force in our culture. Every liberal cause has essentially been won so thoroughly that most "conservatives" wouldn't dare question it.

He links modern liberalism to the general force of "progressivism" or "liberalism" that pushed us away from monarchy towards democracy to begin with. His writings span years and are difficult to summarize, but this post, the first in a series of posts "introducing" his blog to the uninitiated does a decent job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

[Murica!]

Obama please remove from existence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

sh**t, he's on to us.

[PJ]

If you need to replace democracy with monarchy in order to implement your ideas, your ideas are almost certainly terrible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cogendism.

[Jacobtm]

If you need to replace democracy with monarchy in order to implement your ideas, your ideas are almost certainly terrible.

Read it, or, just dismiss it without reading it. Your life. You might enjoy engaging with ideas that are different than the ones already in your head.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Simfan34]

Never knew Mencius Moldbug's name until now.

[Cassius]

In many respects, he has a fair point, especially regarding the utter dominance of liberal, enlightenment thought, and on the fact that, in the end, the liberal-left always wins. However, he is wrong to assume that the monarchies and autocracies of the past consistently produced superior governance to modern liberal democracies; in fact, as I'm sure many will know, it was often pretty woeful (ie the Roman Empire in the Third Century, post-16th century Spain, 18th century France being but a few examples).

[Antonio the Sixth]

in fact, as I'm sure many will know, it was often pretty woeful (ie the Roman Empire in the Third Century, post-16th century Spain, 18th century France being but a few examples).

I'm pleasantly surprised that you agree those governments were awful.

[mencken]

In many respects, he has a fair point, especially regarding the utter dominance of liberal, enlightenment thought, and on the fact that, in the end, the liberal-left always wins. However, he is wrong to assume that the monarchies and autocracies of the past consistently produced superior governance to modern liberal democracies; in fact, as I'm sure many will know, it was often pretty woeful (ie the Roman Empire in the Third Century, post-16th century Spain, 18th century France being but a few examples).

The appropriate comparison here is not medieval monarchies to modern democracies but contemporaneous monarchies and democracies with similar demographics. Of course, this is somewhat difficult due to democracy being a relatively modern practice, but comparing France before and after 1789, the United States before and after ~1824, various states in South Asia and Africa after decolonization, etc. would be more apt comparisons.

[Cassius]

in fact, as I'm sure many will know, it was often pretty woeful (ie the Roman Empire in the Third Century, post-16th century Spain, 18th century France being but a few examples).

I'm pleasantly surprised that you agree those governments were awful.

Is there anybody who doesn't?

In many respects, he has a fair point, especially regarding the utter dominance of liberal, enlightenment thought, and on the fact that, in the end, the liberal-left always wins. However, he is wrong to assume that the monarchies and autocracies of the past consistently produced superior governance to modern liberal democracies; in fact, as I'm sure many will know, it was often pretty woeful (ie the Roman Empire in the Third Century, post-16th century Spain, 18th century France being but a few examples).

The appropriate comparison here is not medieval monarchies to modern democracies but contemporaneous monarchies and democracies with similar demographics. Of course, this is somewhat difficult due to democracy being a relatively modern practice, but comparing France before and after 1789, the United States before and after ~1824, various states in South Asia and Africa after decolonization, etc. would be more apt comparisons.

Maybe, but the types of government that these sort of people like to praise (and compare to modern day democracies) are generally speaking pre-enlightenment ones, so I feel my comparison was apt.

[Jacobtm]

Modern examples of non-democratic systems include Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, and other small-scale basically non-democratic systems which are pleasant to live in, secure, and don't really have "politics".

I think the idea in "neo" reaction isn't to actually go back to monarchies of 500 years ago, but to just reject democracy and be in favor of developing modern non-democratic forms of government.

However you do have the example of Chile which shows you that a right-wing "dictatorship" (Pinochet's rule was confirmed by plebiscite for 8 years and then he stepped down after another plebiscite asked him to, so not really a "dictator") can have very positive effects. As we all know Chile is the most prosperous and peaceful country in Latin America by almost every measure.

[DC Al Fine]

Neoreaction is just annoying.

I hang out on a few ultra-conservative Christian blogs/forums and they show up from time to time and ask questions "Is it more important that the Pope be Aryan or orthodox?" Then when we answer orthodox, some kid whose ideology is like six minutes old accuses our two thousand year old faith of betraying conservative principles.

I have no use for their lot.

[/]

sh**t, he's on to us.