What are reactionaries reacting to?

what are reactionaries reacting to?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monarchs_killed_in_action
youtube.com/watch?v=WgPDh764CK4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Subversion of entrenched values. It's a strain of puritanism that always serves the tyrant's (19th century: Big State; 20th century: Big Corp) best interests. Twitter is reactionarism personified under the cape of liberalism (American variant).

Nigger and Kikes, mostly.

The ideas of the French Revolution and the enlightenment.

Actions.

WHAT ARE....

I dunno? Lizard people? This smells like the b8s

Sage just in case

are you saying that the ideas of the french revolution weren't good?

Atheism, communism and faggotry is good?

Definitely the b8s.
Sage

liberty, equality and freedom you twat

the anti-nobility sentiment that first started gaining in power in the early 1500s. Of course there is no nobility left anywhere anymore so reaction is completely and totally LARPing these days

>implying anyone who is mentally sain would think that

Yeah getting dominated by inbred and delusional aristocrats and ruled by incompetent monarchs was sure sustainable in the long run.

Equality I think is a pointless term, kind of like racism. It's been used so many times with so many different definitions since the Ancient times. Liberty and freedom aren't different enough for me to bother making a distinction, but threes ideas did not come from the French Revolution. Mob democracy, the precedent for Communism and dictatorships and women's suffrage came from it. All of these are terrible cancers upon our civilization.

Beat me to it, well done.

>there is no nobility left anywhere
Bullshit. A lot about my friends are nobles themselves. What do you think, that hundreds of thousands of people just disappeared?
Liberty, equality and fraternity
Dumbass

these ideas*
Not threes, damn phone.

>are you saying that the ideas of the french revolution weren't good?

oh boy

That's because you don't understand what equality means. Equality means equal in terms of opportunities, not equal outcome.
>mob democracy
>precedent for communism
What the fuck are you talking about?
Communism, or Marxism-Leninism, is literally based on ''vanguard party'', AKA a small group of ''professional revolutionaries'' seizing power by any means and governing the masses.
It has nothing to do with ''mob democracy'', nor did Bolsheviks in Russia enjoy popular support, as 1917 elections have shown plainly, if you don't believe other evidence.

It's a pejorative term ya dingus.

>t. didn't read julius evola
I'm always proud when called a reactionary

And getting dominated by people like Soros and the EU and US oligarchs is a better alternative? No fucking thanks, at least the nobility was loyal to the King and country. These people only care for themselves and their ideologies.

I don't like classical liberalism or centralization.
Why are you so historically illiterate?

(checked)
modernity
why did kek waste doubles with such a fucking newfag?

Degeneracy

Everything.

Touchy fags.

How the fuck is that different?
Soros and those you mention are the modern nobility.
Do you like it?
>i-in my perfect magical world things would work totally different!111
Naive child.
>nobility was loyal to the King
Literally where?
Nobility was only loyal where they were raped into submission one way or the other, like in Russia.
In Poland nobility literally wrecked the state.
>for themselves
So just like fucking nobles, and just like shitload of kings.
I could give you shitload of examples where nobility wrecked the country.
I'm not sure if you're historically illiterate, or just a troll.

It does seem like it takes larger than life figures to bring about any positive things in a democracy, and that hasn't happened for over a hundred years in the US

I've seen it be defined in many other ways by people ranging from Socrates to Karl Marx to Hillary Clinton. But very well, let us work with your definition. You seem to be confused. I am saying that these concepts came from or were inspired by the French Revolution, not that they are the same or even work together, I am simply pointing out the event as their origin.

At least tell me what I said wrong.

Yes, some people later came to calling themselves reactionaries, but that doesn't change that it's a pejorative term coined by French revolutionaries during the First Republic. It would be better to call yourself something else. Even more so since if you include all the ways it was and is used, the term becomes so broad it loses meaning.

interesting, I agree with the "mob democracy" issue, I have never thought it that way

I actually linked you by mistake.
Sorry.

Everything comes from something, ideas aren't born in a vacuum.
Nor do changes occur without any reason.
Just because republicanism/democracy isn't a perfect system, doesn't mean feudalism or absolute monarchy or shit like that is better.

Modern world

evola.jpg

But classical liberalism is what gave us the technological advantage to chat on the internet. When everyone is the leader of their own life things tend to happen.

The only good that came out of the French Revolution was nationalism

>classical liberalism gave us the technological advantage
Jesus, please let's not.

This

>Just because republicanism/democracy isn't a perfect system, doesn't mean feudalism or absolute monarchy or shit like that is better.
What about fascism?

>france talking about nobility
You murdered them and neutered the remaining ones.

Classical Liberalism/libertarianism only works in ethnically/culturally homogeneous nations where everyone has the same underlying values, everyone contributes, and mutual trust exists between neighbours. Your ideals are self-defeating when literally all minority groups THAT YOU INVITED IN vote against them.

You reply quickly, I like that.
The nobility had no international interests, and like I said, were always nationalistic. This "modern nobility" you speak of is no nobility at all, when they are in fact following the ideas of the people that were against the old nobility.
The nobility in England, Austria and Prussia were always loyal to their King/Emperor/Kaiser, same with the Russians, but I did not point those out since you said it was out of submission/fear, however, I would argue that it is better to be feared than hated.
And yes, some nobles and Kings might've been in it for themselves, but to that I have two counter arguments. The people and the land they governed were essentially their property, and their children's property, therefore, they, by extension cared for their country just as much as for themselves, unless they were genuinely sadistic, evil or just greedy. And I can tell you that every single other form of government has had a lot more if those kinds of people than monarchies have had. Again, to sum up my last point, yes, there may have been some shitty kings, but there has not been a good democratic ruler in the last 300 years.

I agree?

Well that was a short argument. have a random video

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monarchs_killed_in_action whereas not a single modern politician would die for his people

>Oy vey, stop reacting to what we are doing to your peoples and countries, you reactionary bigot!

True. Modern politicians rarely have military experience or are willing to give their lives for their country. They are sinful devils.

the "jews" dipshit. more specifically, their bullshit cultural marxism etc.

more specifically it's the gay pedophile mafia of weird religion/cult.

Excuse me for a short while, as I must shower.

>trying for political science in 2017
This is stupid, you should keep it about white survival.

Very natural and graceful kid... WTF

>Politicians and the heads of big business are the finest specimens of humanity. I would give my life and the lives of my family to make them just one more dollar per annum.

Save us the trouble and kys.

He's been groomed since birth

Where did it succeed?
Besides, ''fascism'' means a lot of things, which fascism do you have in mind?
>nobility was nationalistic
That's just wrong, totally wrong. Like, you couldn't be farther from truth.
Nobility in some countries was totally detached from the population. Take note of Polish nobility inventing bullshit like "Sarmatism'', and Russian nobles who couldn't speak Russian properly.
>Austria
Which one?
Perhaps German, Austrian nobility, but Hungarian nobility was famously disloyal.
>England
Because nobility there seized power, together with bourgeoisie.
Before they did that, they weren't that loyal, far from it.
>their property
Just look how many people misuse and abuse their property.
>sadistic, evil, greedy
Nicholas II was none of that, yet he was a terrible monarch.
>there has not been a good democratic leader in the last 300 years
Come the fuck on, that's just ridiculous.

But that's same, you tool, except in this case their privileges aren't legally enforced.

That is the question you should always ask. Every article and book on history, everything on contemporary politics, whenever you read the word 'reactionary', don't focus solely on what the reactionaries do. Don't assume their irrationality, ask the very obvious question. What are they reacting to? What happened - what was done - that leads to them considering what they do to be the appropriate way of reacting. You have a lot of reading ahead of you.

youtube.com/watch?v=WgPDh764CK4
This is just a taste of one minor aspect. When it comes to the economic crippling, the donors of the proxies involved in the peace treaty and the occupation, look up the ethnicity. You will discover the truth. You always knew it deep down. You were merely told to tell yourself otherwise.

Anyway, your idea of nobility and monarch acting in unison is a case for later, absolute monarchies, where nobility lost much power. Why do you think Versailles was built?
Strong nobility means weak monarchy, this is a historical rule.

Communism and those that seek to install it.
It all boils down to the same story that the "elites" have been shoving down the throats of people to gain more and more authority over them: Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the single most evil doctrine that has even been accepted as truth by a people. It rots them to their core and destroys everything which made them great in the first place. The only people who benefit from egalitarianism are those who have already established structures that are outside the perview of egalitarianism. We all know who these people are, of course.

You seem to not know the definition of 'nationalist', it means being proud of and loving your country. This, the majority of nobility was and did.
And why was it that the Hungarian nobility was disloyal? You just contradicted yourself here. They were disloyal because they wanted autonomy for their nation, and later independence.
I disagree. If the English nobility truly did seize power they wouldn't have kept neither the King nor the Parliament, yet they didn't get rid of either. They only ever installed a new King, if anything.
Then they are either irrational or just plain stupid. I don't see many people destroying or damaging their property on purpose.
What does Nicholas II have to do with this argument? I didn't say those traits are the only things that define a bad King. Incompetence doesn't have anything to do with that specific argument.
>Come the fuck on. That's just ridiculous.
Not an argument. Name one.

Again, egalitarianism doesn't mean what you think it does, and crying about egalitarianism while at the same time decrying "elites" is downright schizophrenic, but given your meme flag I'm not surprised.

Their own failings as human being.

Progress. Which is exactly why they all deserve to be snuffed out without reservation.

And Nicholas II did care for his country, but he wasn't competent enough to run it through the disaster that were the two wars that Russia had lost during his reign.

Please, define egalitarianism then. The internet would have me believe it means:
"the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities"
Which I staunchly oppose as a great evil. Equality is unnatural. Natural hierarchies exist and disprove the egalitarian concept.

No, that's patriotic. Nationalism is something else. I mean by definition this is similar, but these two terms are often used in this manner.
And you're wrong on that account too.
Just look at episodes like half of Polish nobility welcoming Swedish invasion in mid 16th century, which had catastrophic consequences.
>autonomy for their nation
Their "nation" was Hungarian nobility. They didn't even feel much attachment to ordinary Hungarians. Read some history books, I beg you.
>didn't get rid of either
Parliament was for a long time dominated by nobility, and English nobility literally chopped off the head of their monarch (well, PART of nobility) a century before French did.
With the collapse of Cromwell's regime, monarchy was again reinstated, and then finally lost much of it's power in Glorious Revolution.
But in British case, it was a rather "tame" revolution, hence why traditions weren't disrupted that much.
>name one
De Gaulle.

The term "reactionary" is fucking retarded. It tries to make it sound like anybody opposing some sort of """change""" as being idiotic. Communists will call people "reactionaries" who oppose the massive economic changes that Communism desires. It's just idiotic to me. But language is a warzone and can be used for purposes of propaganda. Don't ever forget that.

Jews
/Thread

So you hate people being equal in front of law?
You think some people should enjoy more rights just because they crawled out of the right pussy?
What's funny about you is that you espouse nationalist (populist) slogans while at the same time arguing for brutal elitism. Ridiculous.

But that's my point. He was by all accounts a good man, good family man, loved his people and his country, and he did an awful job.
I could name other examples, but point is, ''monarch is better because he rules his property'' is dumb argument.
As I said, just look at how many people misuse their property.
Not to mention a concept of nation being a property of a single man is laughable. By what right?

The Polish nobility welcomed the Swedes because the King was hated, and because he was incompetent. They didn't however want a Swedish King, they just wanted a new Polish King, and if it took the Swedish armies to do that, then so be it. They were doing it in the interest of the nation and monarchy. Do you think they were pro-democracy or Republic? I doubt it.
>Their "nation" was Hungarian nobility
That's a silly and unsourced argument. Their nation was Hungary, and their loyalty was to a Hungarian King, not an Austrian. They also sperged out when Franz Joseph II wanted to give more autonomy to the Czechs because they were loyal and productive, thus showing that they cared more for the autonomy of their nation(ationality) than any other.
I never said that they didn't kill the King, I said that they didn't get rid of the King, as in the position, not the person.
>De Gaulle
Lmao, not only did he not do anything about the fact that half of Europe was served to the Soviets on a silver platter, he served as one of the founding fathers of a united European Union. He was not a good leader by any means, not in a political sense nor a military one. The French army got absolutely btfo'd under his generalship.
You misunderstood my argument. It was that a monarch who cares for himself by extension must care for his people and country, as they are his property. If he doesn't, he is either sadistic, evil, mad or just plain selfishly greedy.
This Nicholas II wasn't, he was simply incompetent. But that has nothing to do with our argument.

Switched to my PC from my Phone, hence the flag change.
There may be some time between my replies, as I have to go for a short while.