Did The Catholic Church Really Support The Divine Right of Kings?
#11
I guess by most people's estimation I would be a "neo-reactionary" but I don't label myself that way because there's too much crypto-modernist anti-Catholic thought in that loop.
Reply
#12
I would classify myself as a libertarianish Monarch if there is such a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#13
(03-24-2015, 06:23 PM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: I would classify myself as a libertarianish Monarch if there is such a thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Such a thing is entirely normal, as monarchists go.
Reply
#14
I don't fetishize liberty as much as I did in my libertarian days but there would be a lot more of it under the typical monarchy than under the average republic. This is true to this day, compare Liechtenstein to any of its neighbors.
Reply
#15
(03-24-2015, 06:23 PM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: I would classify myself as a libertarianish Monarch if there is such a thing.
You're a libertarianish monarch, or a libertarianish monarchist? :LOL:
Reply
#16
Haha thanks for pointing that out :)

I cant stop laughing thanks to you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#17
(03-24-2015, 06:42 PM)Ave Castitatis Lilium Wrote: I don't fetishize liberty as much as I did in my libertarian days but there would be a lot more of it under the typical monarchy than under the average republic. This is true to this day, compare Liechtenstein to any of its neighbors.

I'm in much the same position. I'm a former libertarian who dropped the ethics but kept a lot of the practical attitudes.
Reply
#18
Same here. I generally symphatize with a large extent with libertarian though specifically on various practical issues such as economics and things such as subsidiarity and localism but There is also much I tend to reject (mostly on various social and moral issues)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
#19
Good article, though I'd agree with the others that you're probably reading too much modern democratic thought into the Medievals. I also take something of an issue with the notion that political authority is derived from consent; I'm aware similar statements have appeared in more recent Church documents, but it still seems to contradict higher levels of the Magisterium (Romans 13 being the most obvious example).I don't really think it's a doctrine anyone but the libertarian minarchists (such as my younger self) truly believe in, anyway.

I'm also a former libertarian with significant libertarian/classical liberal sympathies and a fondness for neoreaction, and have retained my fondess for monarchy and autocratic systems of government. Aside from the Islamic issue I would cite the UAE as another "liberal monarchist" prototype.

Also, not all forms of eugenics are contrary to the Faith. To the extent it involves abortion or other forms of murder, it would be ruled out (for those reasons), but eugenics simply means increasing the quality and strength of the human gene pool. Obviously, this doesn't mean people with "inferior" genes should be teated as subhuman, but a general drive (be it by government or not) to improved mankind, while perhaps being ruled out for prudential reasons of possibly corruption in implementaiton, doesn't strike me as a bad idea at all.

Side note: There's several crackpot movements, at least one of which are on Tumblr, which hold curing disabilities like deafness, autism or blindness are a form of genocide. So most people already accept eugenics on that basic level.

As for "scientific racism", that term just seems like a buzzword used to attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Cult of Equality. It's true that there was some racialist pseudoscience from the 19th century, but the science cited by modern race realists has nothing to do with things like phrenology and is widely (though for obvious reasons, quietly) accepted as at least plausible by leading researchers in those fields.

Also, very, very few neoreactionaries are fascists, with the possible exception of the Anissimov/ethno-nationalist wing. The only form of fascism resembling theirs is Singapore (RIP Lee Kuan Yew), and fascism historically has little association with racialism (Naziism being seperate from fascism, in case you are wondering).

Neoreactions real issue, as far as the Faith is concerned, is that is something of (as bizarre as it sounds) an authoritarian variant on classical liberalism and libertarianism. Exit over Voice clearly shows an underlying libertarian concept of political rights. This doesn't mean their analysis is necessarily off (nor is anarcho-capitalist Hans Hermann Hoppe's) when it comes to attacking the Molech of Social Democracy, merely that it has to be qualified and "translated" into Catholic language of subsidiarity for more proper grounding.
Reply
#20
As far as "eugenics" without murder goes, I actually believe that once prenatal gene therapy becomes a viable medical procedure, it will become a moral obligation to perform it on unborn children with harmful genetic issues. Imagine a world where no one is aborted for having Down Syndrome anymore because their extra chromosome was simply removed. If that's eugenics, then, I guess I'm a eugenicist. But if by eugenics you mean "racial hygiene" or what not, absolutely not.

I don't deny that there are quantifiable differences between ethnic/racial groups. But the fact that obsessing over it has led to so many millions of deaths makes it a low priority for me. It's an essentially materialist and modernist hobby for WASPs and heathens.

As a big fan of Singapore and the late, great Lee Kuan Yew, I don't think I'd call them fascist. Authoritarian and politically incorrect on a fundamental level, yes, but not fascist. If anything, I'd call them Platonist, even if they're not consciously so. I'm aware that fascism outside of national socialism does not necessarily imply racialism but they tend to go together these days. And, of course, there's the issue that fascism is basically the fulfillment of the French Revolution and condemned both in its Italian style in Non Abbiamo Bisogno and Quadragesimo Anno as well as its German style in Mit Brennender Sorge.

Again, I guess I'd be considered a neo-reactionary by most people's estimations. But my views are closer to Carlism and or maybe integralism than anything Moldbug is rambling about.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)