Slashdot Mirror
Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries
Third Position writes "Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there's a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution. Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy."
Bringing back serfdom.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
As long as _I_ am the one who's in power.
No, thanks.
Sure, a monarchy works great until you get someone like Kim Jung Il or Kim Jung Un at the top. Then your screwed.
I'm all for it, as long as I get to be the King.
I bet that women and minorities are underrepresented in this movement to turn the calendar back.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any system is great as long as you are one of the elites, living off the backs of the slaves. In theory that shouldn't be possible in a democracy, which is why the elites in the US keep us as far from a democracy as possible.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Please! Someone buy these idiots a history book. This is such a perfect example of people who think they're smart but they actually know jack shit about anything except pushing bits. The funny thing is, after the first arbitrary detention and execution of a dissident for "lesse majesty" or "treason against the crown" they'd all be up in arms and in jail. I really hope they're not all really this stupid and this is all just a way to get a reaction.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
“If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit,’ no ‘voice.’”
Any business can tell you the value of switching costs. Once you reel them in, it is expensive to move. So, even though another city-state might be better, people will still not move since the cost of moving, even assuming the State doesn't actively interfere with exit taxes or similar measures, would prevent most from moving. This is why retail chains all want you to sign up for their cursed club cards, to try to create switching costs that will keep you around even though they suck. Plus, we don't live in Bruce Sterling's cladist space utopia, there are limited options for moving in space while stuck on Earth's surface, even ignoring the costs. Why don't all those North Koreans just move? Perhaps these fellows have answers to these criticisms, I haven't spent all day reading their FAQ or anything.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.
Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?
"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"
Around here, we don't dignify them with such latinate terms, we just call them assholes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
... for having frequented them in France. The French Neo-Reactionaries are, quite often, staunch arch-catholics and rather vehement racists, who often glorify one form or another of fascism. They are a rancid bunch, IMHO.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Which is why you don't give them any actual power.
... were against democracy.... that is why they established a Republic.
For a better understanding of different government systems - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
If you read TFA, the neoreactionaries are proposing that the monarch at the top of the hierarchy be selected by genetic fitness. The smartest, fittest, and most handsome men (one assumes only men) would rule. So there's no danger of anyone from the Kim Jung family being in charge. We're much more likely to end up with Hitler.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Since 1988, the House of Bush has occupied the Presidency for 12 years, the House of Clinton for 8 years and been a major player in another administration for 4 years as well as having better than average odds of gaining the White House for at least another 4 years if not 8.
It gets even more like that if you start looking at the House, Senate and Governorships and factor in other family dynasties like the Kennedys, the broader House of Bush.
Then there are various corporate/government crossovers where scions of capitalists enter politics. Minnesota's governor is the child of the Dayton family (retail shopping, family was behind Dayton's and now Target Stores).
I'm not sure we need to declare a new monarchy or aristocracy; we've just more less quietly reinstated it.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
But "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
But democracy isn't one thing. There are a lot of ways in which democracies can differ from each other. e.g. the Athenian democracy was very different from our own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy Only free adult males could take part and the political party system didn't exist. In a modern democracy, there are lots of ways you could run the show differently to have different outcomes. Let's take the US. Imagine how different things would be if:
In other words, make it once more a government of the people and for the people and don't things that conflict with that. If those things were fixed 30 years ago, we'd be in a much better place today.
Other countries have other problems too. I'm just bringing up the US because I'm living here right now and, as a foreigner, I more sharply see the contrasts with other countries I've lived in.
soylentnews.org
And like monarchy the problem lies in getting competent rulers and the succession wars.
Benevolent dictatorships are far less bureaucratic and less prone to corruption. On the other hand they tend to not represent all the minorities of the country very well, even the most benevolent dictator will have some pet issues he disagrees with even if the population agree, think abortion, gay marriage, etc. The minorities will have no way of getting their rights. The democracy motto after all is "The will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority".
I still think that benevolent dictatorships are better than democracy, but then again I'm white, male and heterosexual.
That tends to be the tradeoff, when monarchies work well they work really well, and when they work badly they work really badly. Democracy tend to pull things more to the center, so things never work all that well, but they do not get nearly as bad either.
As is often the case with rose tinted glasses, I guess some people are looking back to the best cases and not really thinking about what also goes wrong and why we moved away from those structures in the first place.
Eh, when you have that much political power (or the military behind you), the criteria for genetic fitness has an odd way of adjusting to whoever is already in charge.
1. Blasphemy: as a law the crown can and does have you executed for everything from a simple expletive to your atheism or lack of church attendance. Criticism of the monarchy, as exemplified in thailand, is very punishable by death.
2. Grinding poverty and inequality: Monarchial rule begets serfdom and a midevil class structure. furthermore that class is infected upon your name for generations. Kings decide what you can and cannot eat with hunting laws, and who you can and cannot marry by proxy of the church. in the past, even certain hats and colors were banned by monarchies.
3. forced rule: In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government. If you want to see what this is like, visit North Korea.
Curtis Yarvin, the prominent neoreactionary mentioned in the piece, is a Libertarian. as are Hoppe and Seller.
Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants. Anissimov calls it a 'self-organizing consensus.' Sometimes the term is used synonymously with political correctness. The fundamental idea is that the Cathedral regulates our discussions enforces a set of norms as to what sorts of ideas are acceptable and how we view history â" it controls the Overton window, in other words.
This is just a comedic recasting of a Fox news script. Rail against the intellectual elite, lambast the media for their liberal bias, and bitch relentlessly about how Political Correctness is destroying society by repressing dicks like John Derbyshire and every other techbro and brogrammer barking 'dyke' and 'cunt' at the first woman to correct their segfault. Its angry white men that think somehow because they write python or understand linux they have a carte blanche to grind their axe about everything from the taxes they pay to the horrors of enduring their multicultural workplace.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I think it was Churchill who said something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". The problem is not democracy. If we actually lived in a democracy things would be better -- not perfect, by any means -- but better. The problem is that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy. Life in a plutocracy is not much different than life in a monarchy. It survives because it maintains an illusion of democracy and is less overtly oppressive than a monarchy.
Proverbs 21:19
How funny would it be to get a look at some of these bloggers?
Something tells me we wouldn't find the "smartest, fittest and most handsome men". So what they're basically asking for is to be put on the dog end of the social scale, when they should be kissing the ass of the current social order, which at least gives them a bit of a chance..
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ah I get it. Women like me who are FED UP with being screwed over and looked over in work places, paid less, being belittled and regarded as weak, less able and don't except that as given and unchangeable are FemNazis.
Got it. In that case I am proud to be a FemNazi.
No, monarchy is shit even if you get an enlightened, benevolent, philosopher-king at the top. You cannot live in a free society if there is a class of people that are born with rights to which the majority have no claim. Some people might be happy to be slaves in the off chance that they are treated well and given light work, but it is rude of them to think the rest of us would want anything to do with it, and it is evil of them try and force it onto their children.
... and they have been with us since before the U. S. Constitution was signed. They had a defining influence on that document, leading to a significant disconnect between it and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.
It was these individuals who invited the King of Prussia to reign over the new United States and it was they who opposed the Bill of Rights. Bear in mind that no small number of the wealthy who came to American shores did so to establish themselves as the new plutocratic aristocracy. Often, they had in their pockets grants of land and privileges from the crown.
It is simply a symptom of the times that they are coming out of the closet now, though their influence has always been with us. Take for instance, Leo Strauss' embrace of the Platonic "noble lie", which was a touchstone for legitimizing nobility's grip on power long before there was a United States of America.
Disclaimer: i'm Swiss
I fully agree with what you say as the Swiss history have a big dependency with the French Revolution. This revolutionary movement have been the ignition of the last Swiss civil war a half century after the trouble in France. Fortunately, revolutionary movement lost the this civil war with very low fatalities, tanks to a cleaver general from the federal army. This permit a quick reconciliation and there started together to write a new constitution that mixed ideas from the USA constitution, the proved good proportional representation already used in some cantons, and ideas from the French revolution. Pragmatically, I think that the result seem to be worth trying.
The today French and USA democracies are incomplete from my point of view, by giving to much power to the government of a single party after it have been elected. In both countries this inevitably end up with 2 leading big parties that tend to share each almost half of the suffrage, resulting in about half of the citizen frustrated by the elected government, regardless of the choice. I think that a federal council with a proportional representation is a interesting method to improve the situation and lowering the number of frustrated citizens.
Good grief. Eugenics on top of autocracy. Nazi Germany, here we come.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The summary is right about one thing: democracy appears undesirable, or at least sub-optimal, to many intelligent successful geeks.
The actual support for wanting to "turn back the clock" or to have gender roles or whatever is fragmented, and may range from "this is probably worked better than what we're doing today" to "yeah, I'd enforce this via the sword", with relatively few people advocating the latter.
In the last 15 years I've given up on the GOP, given up on libertarianism, and now consider myself squarely an anarchist.
There's a strain of people, lets call them "technocrats", who are probably very smart, and believe that if only they were in charge, they could make things better.
These people want to believe in democracy, but they see the very real impediment it presents to them getting anything done. It's ridiculous to them that they must put up with climate deniers and intelligent design blowhards (and critically, those that these groups elect to office) when there is critical work to be done.
They may be right, but invariably the powerful institutions they build will be co-opted by people who are either less capable or less moral, or often, both. You build a state science department, and invariably, Pat Robertson is going to end up running it somehow.
Then you have people like me, who have become so disillusioned with government that I contend the whole affair should be done away with.
I was fed a steady diet of government school growing up, and I've found out how much of that was pro-state mythology. And so one naturally questions other parts of the mythology. Is our government good? Is it effective? Does it have the right goals? What about the "right" to vote? Who really ought to have it? Why?
I, for instance, take the unpopular view that voter suppression is probably a good idea - as long as it is done for the right reasons. Voting in this country is by no means an "absolute right". Felons don't get the right to vote; neither do children or the mentally handicapped (beyond some level). So let's dispense with that claim entirely. Society has always had (and will continue to have) rules on who may vote.
Some percentage of the voting public is clearly dumber than I am, and clearly unable to manage their own affairs and well-being appropriately.
So a rude question emerges: Should people who cannot manage their own lives get any role in managing mine? (e.g., a "vote")?
I'm persuaded that the answer is, "no".
The difference between an anarchist and a technocrat, on this issue, is that an anarchist ALSO doesn't recognize the right of a successful man to govern an unsuccessful one.
The tech crunch article listed Herman Hoppe as one of the members of this club. I'm a fan of Hoppe, and he in no way is an advocate of Monarchy. He is a critic of the state, and specifically a critic of democracy. He has an excellent bit of writing that explains immigration policy from the POV of a monarch vs. an elected official, and in his conclusion, the self-interested monarch has a much better set of incentives for a positive immigration policy than does the elected official who panders for votes. Pointing out situations where a monarch behaves preferably to a democratic body does make one an advocate of Monarchy, any more than saying "the trains ran on time!" make one an advocate of Mussolini.
What you're seeing here is a group made up of successful, intelligent people, who grew up with the internet in its wild-west days -- there was no authority to crush dissent and no censorship.
They're questioning the mythology of society. Either our society is on firm enough footing that it stands, or it isn't, and these ideas spread.
It's worth pointing out that the fastest growing socio-cultural group is socially conservative Islam. Proponents of progressive social democracy had better have some pretty damn good answers (and more kids), because there's a storm coming. Not helping the impending clash is the reality of this article: Some of the best and brightest that our progressive society has produced are having second thoughts about the society that birthed them.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
> You cannot live in a free society if there is a class of people that are born with rights to which the majority have no claim.
You just described every society on the planet. Whether it's due to aristocratic privilege or good ol' money, that's how the world works.
That is why I put in the part about having to understand their beliefs. Personally, I'm protestant, but the actual orthodox Catholic view is that Saints should not be worshiped but rather that they intercede on behalf of the person praying to them. They don't have any power or honor beyond being a hero of the faith so to speak. It does end up leading to (what I see as a minorly incorrect view) that their being "better" Christians results in God listening to them more, but it isn't idol or saint worship if properly following formal Catholic beliefs.
AJ Henderson
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
AJ Henderson
Brit here.
To answer this, let us first consider what the American President does: on the one hand there is a bunch of PR work and flag waving, on the other a bunch of keeping up with what's going on in the country,authorizing things and politicing.
In essence, the Queen handles most of the PR and flag waving, while the Prime Minister (a simplification in this case) handles most of the keeping up on things, authorizing and politicing.
Of course, the PM also does a bunch of flag waving and PR. The Queen also spends hours every day keeping up on what's going on in the country (and has done so for the past 60 years or so) so that she can discuss this with the PM in their weekly meetings. While the Queen may not have much recognized power anymore, a discrete comment of 'do you really think that is such a good idea?' from her will carry considerable weight.
Naturally, this is an over-simplification which glosses over things, and applies mostly to the UK rather than the other countries of which she is Queen.
Not serfdom. Serfs were bound by traditional duties, but the same traditions bound their liege lords with obligations and to recognize certain rights. So, for example, you cannot turn a serf off the land his father worked. You cannot threaten him and his family with hunger in order to compel new concessions. He has a great many days guaranteed off since they're holy days. Most days of the week, he's actually working for himself and only a fraction was her required to work on his liege's land and projects.
Compare this with the circumstances your cite. Some rights are granted by our legal system but the obligations owed to a worker (esp. pay) have been in decline since the 1970's. But the employee has no security. High unemployment makes them easily replaceable; Walmart doesn't allow them to organize; they could be left at any moment with more bills than money. Thus, concessions are easy to secure for the employer who knows his employees only work for him because they've few other options. Sure, they don't lower their worker's salaries but they do reduce labor costs by having ever fewer workers perform ever more tasks. And who can complain? As for days off, Walmart workers certainly don't get our civic holidays off. Days like Sunday were once a great and beautiful thing. They were guarantees that an employer was not the master of an employees life. They granted all people the very human dignity of being able to spend time with family. They even allowed time for people to recognize a god other than Mammon. Walmart employees even have to work on Thanksgiving now and the holiday season has the most taxing schedule for them. A retail worker often does not know when he'll be working two weeks hence, and can therefore make few sure plans to spend with family and friends. Oh well, it's easier just to stay home and watch TV ($199 at Walmart!) and eat popcorn than to have to risk cancelling on friends again. As for the fraction of pay, I would be willing to bet that the ratio of profit, Walmart:"associate", is far better for Walmart than ever was the ratio of produce, liege:serf.
So, I do not think it best to say Walmart wishes to make its employees serfs. Serfs are a meddlesome bunch and tend to riot when their traditional rights are usurped. I think rather that Walmart wishes to leave its employees in a servile condition, as a great master over so many slaves. And while I'm at it, I'll throw this little bomb: the current form of consumerist capitalism undermines friendship, family, the human dignity of workers, and even religion.
Democracy of itself is the tyranny of the majority. In the USA, the Bill of Rights provides some protection against this tyrant, by putting some limits on democratic processes. The USA is far from a pure democracy (thank the Powers That Be).
One of the options TFA talks about is a system where CEOs become monarchs with stockholders becoming nobles or gentry. If I understood correctly, the author says that this is one proposed neoreactionary system of governance. However it fits the definition of fascism, and would certainly fail for the same reason fascist regimes always fail: they are too susceptible to internal corruption, when policy makers put selfish concerns ahead of societal concerns. "Yes, I have decided that we need to build a flood control dam, and my company will supply the concrete for the job. It's true that we have never had a flooding problem but it is good social policy to be prepared."
Pure monarchies have serious problems when an incompetent gains the throne. And they have troubles with filling a vacancy at the top without a lot bloodshed.
Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government... except for all the others. That's as true now as it was in the last century.
Will
Whatever your opinion of Obama, he is certainly not from "the ruling class".
Really? Let's see... A descendant of rulers and politically-connected international travelers, Religious and Prep school upbringing in upper-class neighborhoods, Educated at Occidental and Columbia and law degree from Harvard ... what's missing?
Obama is only "black" because his father was a member of the ruling class from a black country. His mother, who also had a PhD, is descended from an American slave-holder family.
How did you come to this delusion that Obama is not a member of the ruling class?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Wasn't this basically Plato's argument a long time ago? The best theoretical form of government is to have a "philosopher king" that has a lot of power but always acts in the interests of the people, this way things get done efficiently and even if the uneducated people think its not correct to do. But of course the problem is making sure the king is a philosopher -- most of the time, these type of people are not the ones that even want to be king. Otherwise, you end up with a very bad situation. Democracy is not perfect but it tends to smooth out the problem of not having philosophers as leaders, but we don't always know what is best for ourselves.
No, not money. You are confusing rights with privileges. An aristocratic class enjoys rights granted to them by the law that the majority do not posses. The wealthy enjoy money, and while money might give the rich a lifestyle parallel to that which was enjoyed by the old aristocracy, being born rich gives you (in principle, we are arguing about principles) no more rights than the poor also have. Some people have called this 'equality before the law'.
You may say that the rich have many things that the poor do not. Well obviously they do. But this is qualitatively different from being born with the right to sit in the upper house of parliament because you are the son of a lord.
Economic inequality is a bad thing. The lack of social equality is a very, very bad thing.
She serves as an important 'symbolic' head of state.
Yes, and we are all her "subjects", and pay for the upkeep of her properties and for state events in her honour. Most unsatisfactory.
When we need someone to patriotically rally around, we don't need to wrap a politician up in a flag and recognize him as the embodiment of our national values and virtues. We have a monarch for that.
Unfortunately we can't get rid of her if she turns out not to represent our values. The current bint is mostly bland an inoffensive but her son, who is of course due to become king whether we like it or not, is quite opinionated.
In terms of actual powers? Lots, but by general convention these days she doesn't actually use them.
If she did it would cause a constitutional crisis and we would have to get rid of her. She isn't that dumb, unfortunately.
is the ultimate head of the Church of England with the power to alter doctrine on a whim
And so required to be an Anglican, as is anyone else in line for the throne. This alone violates her basic human right to choose her religion, and quite possibly her right to choose her sexuality and marry whomever she pleases too.
Being head of the CofE she could do some small good by forcing them to accept women in their upper ranks or same-sex marriage, but she doesn't.
It's a simple deal: She gets to keep her vast country-ruling powers, on condition she never uses them.
Don't forget all the free money from taxpayers, even though she is the richest woman in the country. Not sure about her but her son is a tax dodger too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC