http://i.imgur.com/FrNO7vx.png
On fullchan, an anon made this post. I would call it a thoughtful critique of neoreactionary monarchism. Anissimov also mentioned it on More Right.
What do you Dark Illuminists think of it? Is Monarchy compatible with the era of mass media?
Posted Oct 9, 2014, 3:20 PM UTC · edited
It's kinda weak to assume that the advancement of technology will somehow radically change the way people think in an instant, without there being a philosophical agitation (like philosophes during the French Revolution or Marx) to "wake the people up". Especially since we're advancing in genetics. Mass media, as we've seen, is a tool for "liberation" of the people, as much as it is a tool for "enslavement" of the people - no reason to assume that it will work against an autocrat.
I'm pretty much down with every form of Autocracy which doesn't derive its legitimacy from something as abstract as the agreement by people (I'm down with deriving its legitimacy from the category of People deified to a certain abstractness, this I still got to work on articulating). Essentially, no demotist governments. Since "demotist" government is pretty much a term that was non-existant (?) before NRx, and since I like to blatantly steal use certain concepts the way I see fit, I define a demotist government as any government which derives its legitimacy from the agreement (whether or not this agreement is real - that the people want to be ruled or not is irrelevant) of the people to its rule. So any democracy is demotist, but not every demotist government is a democracy (for example, communism an fascism fall under a demotist government, more or less). The trick with the demotist government is that any resentment people usually have towards civilization is dispersed, as opposed to a non-demotist government where it can be materialized towards a ruler or a group - which leads to revolutions. The bad part is that it has no coordinator which is outside the system to coordinate it which leads to a slow, but steady, shift to the left - towards the destruction of civilization. Traditional Monarchists derive their legitimacy from God (from the clergy) for this same reason.
I didn't quite find what "demotist" means exactly, so I interpreted it to suit my own world view, if anyone whishes to correct me, please do so.
your definition of demotist is right on, at least so far as I have interperted Nrxers.
http://i.imgur.com/p3y4BAC.png (my response on fullchan)
I also want to add that the fall of monarchies did not coincide cleanly with the invention or even the proliferation of any sort of mass communication technology. It came centuries after the printing press (and then only in a handful of nations).
It came before TV or Internet. I guess you could say it somewhat coincided with the proliferation of the radio, but I would argue that it had to do a lot more with the American Victory in WW1. Especially considering that it's not hard for a well-established monarchy to dominate the airwaves (as Austria-Hungary did).
Most religions are not totalitarian - in Christianity for instance "render unto Ceasar .. ".
In all societies rule is by coercion or by consent, usually a little of both. Thus a monarchy was never "a single king who everyone loves and trusts fully" - hence plots to overthrow the king. ( War of the Roses, for 200 ? )
Thus their entire idea of what a monarchy is for is entirely without a solid founding and fully suspect.
The fall of monarchies has a lot to do with the increasing power of the middle class, nee "merchants". When you have that many people, you can't have them all in court ...
Most religions are not totalitarian - in Christianity for instance "render unto Ceasar .. ".
Yeah, come to think of it, by the definition I posited, religions are not totalitarian.
I'm not seeing a critique or anything thoughtful here... Why wouldn't monarchy be compatible with mass media? This is never explained.
I found the question intriguing. It's not like a biting criticism that makes me doubt anything, but it did pique my curiosity.
EDIT: tbf, this may seem more thoughtful than it is coming after the endless spamming of "NRx is Jewish" by that one guy.
who?
it's an anon, but apparently he keeps posting on 8chan.co/fringe/ as well. See soapjackal's comment here. Some of this spammer's comments are in those archives.
I agree with Urban. The correlated and causal relationships between monarchy and its fall arent just simply: mass media.
A big issue on fullchan is that we started just being meta-nrx on there with no 'gentle introduction for facists' because they are getting really hung up on the specific names for things rather than the essences of the governing concept.
They are also into talking about us. These threads were in the past day:
https://archive.today/RO5R7
https://archive.today/oAN5B
https://archive.today/X3itb
https://archive.today/x7eZt
https://archive.today/JqgQn