How can anyone take neo-reactionary ideologies seriously? Are there any good arguments in their favor?

>there are people on Veeky Forums right now who think industrial civilization will survive the next 100 years

Except that is not true at all. The idea that the average person is significantly transformed in a linear direction from the times of ancient Sumer to now is blatant nonsense. Culture changes, but it is does not change towards some goal or end point. It changes direction, or collapses, it goes in loops. Its crazy, and what you might think of as an ascent others will view as a degeneration.

You are extremely naive in assuming that just because the world is becoming more in line with your ideology now, that it will continue to do so for the indefinite future, and that every century shall simply be a refinement upon the next.

People-groups are absorbed into other groups, ideologies split and fracture, tribes are genocided, or recombined. History is a mess. Your entire viewpoint is idiotic and just plain wrong.

You're talking about reactionary ideologies? Well let me give you a serious example. Islam, which has very very different values from the West, is in ascension, in terms of popularity, converts, and sheer birthrate, while the West is in a decline, economically, politically, and culturally [we're even told we have no culture, or that our culture is evil].

Tracing our history over the next few decades, at what point does western liberalism defeat them? At what point does the west's ideology triumph and assimilate Islam? What evidence do you have that it will not in fact be the other way around?

What about, for that matter, Chinese culture, or Russian culture, or African culture, all of which are diametrically opposed to ours and yet are in very clear ascent demographically speaking.

Your near religious faith that everything will turn out all right in the end is LITERALLY killing western civilization by making us unable to compete globally with other tribes, and other ideologies.

Well, look at it this way: assuming that anarchy is untenable and you're going to have to knuckle under to someone, would you rather be ruled by a faceless mass of bureaucrats picked from the slimiest examples of the lower classes or someone born and bred to rule?

How about a representative republic like the U.S. currently has? Who is more likely to succeed, someone who actually has the chops to get elected and reelected again and again, or someone who inherits the position by birth? "Born and bred to rule" is not a good metric for success. "Proof of good rule" is.

I think their main argument is that the effects of the French Revolution were worse than they were positive, and that going back to that system would be preferable.

I don't agree with them, but I can at least see their point of view.

The former. It's a safer bet. They don't tend to have absolute power, and such systems are remarkably good at maintaining the status quo. I'd much rather be in a system engineered for mediocrity than any sort of autocracy that may or may not wind up better.

To be perfectly fair, getting elected doesn't imply skill at leadership, only skill at getting elected which could hinge on base pandering or voter apathy.

going back to the earlier system would be preferable*

I never implied that history is not a mess. Of course, when the considering the elements of history you outlined, history appears as a giant mess. But I am talking about a feature of history more qualitative than quantitative.

None of the cultures you outlined are "diametrically opposed" to our western ideology. No culture is "diametrically opposed" to any other, that would be a gross exaggeration. And it is besides the point. You may argue for that in the abstract, but what matters is how the ideology is in fact carried out. So many Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, can hardly be called so. Most voters are moderates. Most people are not special or fit neatly in a box.

The ascent of a culture demographically does not prevent it from adapting, adapting, or assimilating ideologically. You under-estimate the virulence of western ideology, the most virulent ideology of all time and still so.

And the west is not in decline. It is only that other countries are catching up with us, and that is precisely because western ideology is so virulent.

This is no numbers game with fixed players. You are the one under-estimating how messy things are.

>adapting

*adopting

You are wrong, you are desperately wrong, and the West will collapse unless you and your ilk are stopped. We are declining, they are ascending, and we are in serious danger of assimilation.

The thing that is most dangerous about your belief-system is that you think no culture or value system is opposed to any other. This is the most dangerous thing about leftists. Not that they despise other values and ideas, but that they assume that there are no other values or ideas.

The reason we cannot spread our ideas and defeat other cultures and ideologies is in large part due to this naive assumption of our own invincibility, and that the sheer obviousness of our culture will be sufficient to turns cultures very very very far to the Right of modern progressives, into progressives, without any effort, and with constant capitulation.

We are not invincible, we are not omnipotent, our ideology is not the only ideology on earth right now, and we are in serious existential danger. Not at the present moment, but in the next few decades we could well be rendered globally irrelevant to a new hegemony of Islamic and secular authoritarian ideologies.

Do you know how many rank incompetents there are in the governing bodies of the US? Suffrage is the enemy of Republicanism.

I'd rather have the opposite. I'd rather have risk and reward than the current pattern of suffocation.

you can criticize globalization or the way it's been carried out without being an idiot fascist or sperglord

>African culture

I, for one, am no leftist.

Of course I would concede that certain cultures or value systems are opposed to each other and are unequal. But they are not as opposed to each other as you think. And as I have said, people are plastic. Ideologies are not mere abstractions playing some chess game, they are behaviors carried out by people. For example, what the Church says about moral issues is basically irrelevant seeing as many Catholics do not even listen to the Church or follow its teachings fully. What then is "Catholic ideology"? People are lazy and conform to immediate surroundings.

The rise of one culture does not mean the end of another. We do not live in a zero-sum world. Ideologies are not competing for elbow space on the subway. It's much more intangible than that.

>Russian culture
>ascent
are you retarded

>someone born and bred to rule?
This meme again.

It's a reaction to the disillusionment of modern life. Notice the neo in the reactionary. People have been romanticizing the way the world was in the past since the dawn of time. I would argue that the most effective form of government would be a benevolent, capable monarchy with a supporting technocratic administration. However there is no way to guarantee that the executive will always be benevolent or capable. It would be nice in situations like the debt ceiling where the king could just tell congress, fuck you all we aren't defaulting. Then you also get people like the Spanish Habsburgs "lol fuck you I'm not paying that shit back." Then you get the debt crises and drying up of credit. Just one example. I guess if he's good it's really good. If he's bad, oh fuck are you in for a rough ride.

Semantics over the malleable nature of ideology does not change the fact that our culture is in serious risk of assimilation. And yes, we do live in a zero sum world. Changing demographics means changing laws and forms of social organization as the strong exert their will on the weak, either through war or by the ballot box.

The idea that Europe would be politically the same with a conservative Muslim plurality or even majority, is sheer delusion of the highest order. The rise of one culture can most definitely signal the end of another, or at the very least the end of that culture's period of dominance. White European culture living on in scattered corners of the globe while religious fundamentalists from the middle east decide the course of this planet's history is not the future I want to see down the line.

We need to get serious, and get smart, about the survival and dominance of our culture and people. If we do not, someone else will.

>Semantics over the malleable nature of ideology does not change the fact that our culture is in serious risk of assimilation.

But my entire point about the malleable nature of ideology is against "the fact that our culture is in serious risk of assimilation". We are still the stronger and the others are ours to mold.

Until you accept that, we are talking past each other. So for now, I have nothing else to say.

The worlds course of history isn't going to be decided by Europe. It will be decided by the Americas, Russia, India, and China. Europe ruined itself, and it's going to tear itself apart over the next 50 years. There is no way the EU is going to be able to handle what's coming down the road. It's already reeling from Syria.

>ITT people confusing classical reaction with neoreactionary neckbeardery

>You're talking about reactionary ideologies? Well let me give you a serious example. Islam, which has very very different values from the West, is in ascension,
Islam is imploding. The muslims world is undergoing an unprecedented collapse, there is no future for it on it's current course.

>in terms of popularity, converts, and sheer birthrate
Birth rate I'll give you. However that doesn't speak to the strength of Islam as an ideology, it's a coincidence given that Islam is most popular in poor countries.

>while the West is in a decline, economically, politically,
Economically the west is losing influence due to the growth of China, however this is something of a reversion to the "natural order", given China and India's enormous population. I think that by the time China is ready to compete with the West it will already look a lot like us.

>and culturally [we're even told we have no culture, or that our culture is evil].
Yes, this is usually preached by people who are so embedded in Western culture that they don't know what anything else looks like. Compare the world now with 20 years ago. Western culture has spread, an will continue to spread.

Accept we are not the stronger, because we are intentionally putting up barriers that would allow for our ideology to spread virally.

We refuse to condemn ideologies that oppose ours.

We willingly promote multiculturalism, the idea of explicitly rejecting assimilation.

We spread our ideologies by way of guilt instead of pride, a fine way to convert an emasculated people, but a terrible way to convert set-in-their-ways men from the Middle East or China.

I could go on. Your point is wrong. Period, full stop. We are not in a position of power anymore, and we are not taking the steps necessary to see our ideas survive and prosper in the 21st century.

...

HRx pls go.

What's hrx?

> How can anyone take neo-reactionary ideologies seriously?
You just need to be out of touch enough to believe bunch of fantasy assumptions and you can take basically anything seriously at this point.

>Your near religious faith that everything will turn out all right in the end is LITERALLY killing western civilization by making us unable to compete globally with other tribes, and other ideologies.

Isn't that just the opposite but equally fallacious view of a linear direction to human culture?

> LITERALLY killing western civilization
Western civilization doesn't even declining. It stills shit on whatever it wants on daily basis and has a huge success at forcing its ideological narrative.

>Human progress
well memed son

>he doesn't enjoy a good beheading

I think everyone agrees the rich need to go, I'd just like to add Marxists to the list as well. If you can't understand that, you're just a bigot and need to do some growing up.

Democracy has been a failure, its divided society much more than it has brought us together. Worse still, the Western world can get nothing done besides things contrary to the good of the people: increased immigration, globalization, a short-lived hedonistic cultural stew.

And just because you have a malignant tumor doesn't mean you can't be an athlete.

the only two interesting elemenzt of neoreaction is its readapted critique of liberalism and its deep rooted narrative in the western masses, and Nick Land.

thats it really

>And no pointing out issues with other ideologies doesnt count
this is ridiculous

Heroic Reactionary movement, a split in NRx that is more in line with the European right (Evola, ENR, Burke, Carlyle, some fascist thought)

Just because you have a malignant tumor doesn't mean you should take a bath in cobra venom, either.

Basically all neoreactionary (and more broadly, "alt-right") ideologies are based on the idea that egalitarianism was a mistake and that hierarchy is natural and good.

>Are there any good arguments in their favor?
It is difficult to fault genuine übermensch.

Emphasis on "genuine". I am not referring to the multitudes of Stephen Molyneux fanboys, balding 40 year olds going through a midlife crisis and wannabe gangstas who read "the 48 laws of power", the kinds of people you might see at a multi-marketing scheme seminar.

A genuine übermensch wouldn't see much point in spreading an ideology around, unless they are a politician or a cult leader or something in which case they wouldn't necessarily believe what they are saying.

They would abandon liberal ethics and traditional morality because there is little point to those either, their beliefs would resemble the more realpolitik oriented neo-reactionism for obvious reasons and they would keep these thoughts to themselves or within a small clique. Beliefs that make liberals fly into a rage. For example liberals tell us that paid maternity leave benefits a business because it means they get to keep talent, however they are still paying her for zero work and if it benefited the business to keep her on they would have given her paid maternity leave on their own volition. Most people would be swayed by convention to stop thinking and ignore this, however an übermensch would be compelled to question convention, if not due to routine logic then exactly because everyone is up in arms about it.

Getting real fucking tired of these /pol/ threads on Veeky Forums

Nazis and the klan and such were a thing. So why can't we talk about it and try to unearth their psychological underpinnings?

Because you're not asking about the Klan, or the Nazi Party. You're asking how can anyone take neo-reactionary ideologies seriously, in the present tense.

Fuck off to /pol/ you have an entire board for this.

>fascist

To the trash

>How can anyone take neo-reactionary ideologies seriously?
You can't.

>Are there any good arguments in their favor?
They make the rest of us look good.

We have similar genetics to people in the past, do we not? So why can't we use facts available in the present to interpret history, ideologies and philosophy?

So what if a minority culture grows into a new majority culture? You didn't consent to being born a part of western ideologies, but now you preach for their preservation. Why would any other culture be any different to those in it?

Just seems illogically prejudiced.

Because people are ruled not by genes but by memes.