Being a reactionary is the most logical political position in 2020. We have had 300 years of revolution, popular revolt, and social upheaval in the West. We've had endless utopian dreams of creating a "better world," a world where every man is equal, where there is no poverty, no hunger, and no want.
Where has it gotten us? Right back where we started. We've ultimately wound up with a small group of people owning all the wealth and all the power, just like it was before the ages of revolution. The English Revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Revolutions of 1848, the Russian Revolution--they were all useless and ultimately achieved nothing.
So the most logical response to this is to embrace reaction. It's time to admit the revolutionaries were wrong about everything. Smash up every single aspect of the modern world and just go back to hereditary aristocracy and monarchy. If we have no choice but to have a hierarchy, what kind of hierarchy would you rather have? Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, and George Soros? Or kings, dukes, barons, and princesses?
Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, and George Soros would just be the kings, dukes, barons, and princes.
Logan Peterson
No, the crown estate would seize their assets
Lucas Lewis
>r3ddit spacing >gay text Shut up you fucking incel about “muh reactionary this” “muh rebellion that.” You have no political power, none whatsoever, so it doesn’t matter what you fucking believe. I advise you to go have sex
Ayden Gutierrez
What crown estate? How are you going to make something out of nothing?
Sebastian Lewis
Based.
Adrian Anderson
Revolution that establishes a monarch
William Anderson
In the end, the Stuart cause is the same cause as the National Socialist cause.
Austin Peterson
Who? Why do you assume it wouldn't just be the people who already have aristocratic wealth and influence?
Robert White
I imagine supporters of the reactionary party would form the aristocracy.
Jacob Garcia
Wealth is just numbers without system, when the roman empire collapsed it was not the plebeian filthy rich who took control, but the barbarian tribes king.
Isaiah Nelson
I imagine those people wouldn't be very wealthy or influential. Can they fund an ironically revolutionary army? Do they own refineries and ships and other useful wartime assets? What qualifies them to be aristocrats?
Blake Cruz
Do you think a king is just not the wealthiest man in his tribe? What I'm trying to get at is that it seems to be exceedingly unlikely that any aristocracy is just going to be plucked from the masses. It's far more likely that the people who are already well positioned in a capitalist aristocracy would simply transition into whatever version of it the new system accomodated.
Blake Harris
You seems to confuste aristocracy and nobility, ofc these guys could create a ploutocracy but that would not a be a feodal system like OP ask to go back.
Kings are not the most wealthiest, they rule by relying on feodal duty and religion, it got nothing to do with money. French kings were notoriously not much stronger than their vassals until renaissance and always broke.
This kind of relations were built in time of chaos were money had no value and people relied on blood and gods. It would be impossible for these filthy rich to rebuild it.
Camden Myers
the former wealthy and powerful people who don't support the reactionary party taking power would have their assets seized and be sent to the guillotine (in minecraft)
All of that came about organically. And then you cut it's head off. How do you get back there? It's just a new revolution except this time you claim you're going to inorganically "restore" something that came about organically, and which you killed. And yet somehow, the people who are already at the top, who already control the wealth and have the power and influence, are going to be excluded from the entire arrangement. It's far fetched.
Eli Smith
This sounds a lot like a communist revolution.
Isaac Thompson
that's what the french did during their revolution and they weren't commies. many revolutions involved killing the elites and taking their shit, thats how they gained the power
Logan Evans
I don't think its going to be restored back, just that these people are not going make themselves kings. We will probably evolve in a ploutocratic corporatism.
The only chance to go back as before would be a complete collapse followed by another dark age. The lost of trust in legal means would mean a go back to trust in gods and blood relations.
In the french revolution, the filthy rich bourgeois were the one cutting the heads of poor nobles.
Gabriel Ortiz
because he's poor as fuck and wouldn't qualify.
lmao monarchyfags come in 2 types; the ultimate cuck paypig who is happy to give everything they own to someone else or the schizophrenic who thinks he's a savant-genius prince that will sweep into power through a charasmatic coup d'état
Logan Butler
feudalism is the only righteous form of governance, serfs may not complain because they are barely human
Nathaniel Lewis
no they would be confined to their JEW quaters where they belong and occasionaly killed in a good old fashioned pogrom
aristocracy is not about wealth, but about loyality and force
John Perez
this
Kayden Baker
The few neoreactionary thinkers who publish political work are all bankrolled by plutocrats like Peter Thiel. They know good and damn well that the aristocracy would just be a formal enshrinement of the current oligarchy. Any neoreactionary claiming not to know this is lying to you or lying to themselves.
the reason why aristocrats end up not being wealthy is because they have to dedicate a significant portion of that time and money to state functions, because they are expected to run local state institutions.
