Reactionaries and history

I always enjoy reading about esoteric philosophies of history. Giambatista Vico wrote about cyclical history and was a huge influence on Hegel and Marx, like Spengler was on the Frankfurt School. All philosophies of history have an implied theological element, even Marx owed a lot to christian and Jewish eschatology. What Walter Benjamin did was to fuse Jewish mysticism, Kabbalah and Carl Jung with a philosophy of history grounded in Marx and german idealism. I think stuff like narrative, myth and cosmology are worth reclaiming. terminally relativistic post postmodern post positivism was the ideology of an overfed and complacent liberal order, and I think it may be necessary to move beyond that.

If their beliefs were based on evidence or sound thinking they wouldn't be called 'reactionaries'.

Retard. Your ancestors were asshats literately. But you prove my point.

What, more specifically, do you think it should be replaced with? I consider the task of "re-enchanting the world" as being a thoroughly leftist project, on virtue that if it is not us who do it it will be porky, but I don't know what should be this new myth that replaces post-modernity. I'm partial to cosmicism because I think it's cool and we're used to think of it as being "reactionary", but I am currently reading Graham Harman's take on it and find it interesting, it has the potential to be the corner stone of a new ideology that dethrones the human just as the enlightenment (allegedly) dethroned God.

Replace it with ART DECO and something you ain’t thought of yet to give it that aire of authenticity.

you might be interested in Nikolai Fyodorov and his followers of the Russian Cosmist school. Back in the 19th century Fyodorov was already talking about many ideas we now associate with transhumanism, but from a totally different perspective than those of the Ayn Rand infused Californian ideologues we are used to. Fyodorov thought mankind should be unified under a Common Task, which was to vanquish death and eventually bring everyone who ever died back to life. This may sound rather insane, but there's more depth to it, it's a vision in which humankind plays a key role in the realisation of our Universe's potentialities. The universe as we know it is a chaotic place, ruled by entropy and death, but even that can change, the kingdom of heaven can be created in our reality. Fyodorov was a key influence on the soviet space program, as well as on many Russian mystics, artists and philosophers, writers such as Mayakovsky, Andrei Platonov and the Strugatsky brothers . Here's a really interesting BBC documentary on the legacy of the Cosmists.

youtube.com/watch?v=iO5MFXG-CSY

iep.utm.edu/fedorov/

He again sounds like a sophistrist, bla bla key role, bla bla,
Are you from this plant. If i shook your hand i bet i would think it was a tit if me eyes were closed>

I bet most of you shitheads havnt done a days work in your lives, i mean paper-cuts, the office is a dangerous environment.

what can i say? im really an autist for these sort of things and I rarely get the chance to bring them up.

Are you really going to do this? Pic related is how you sound right now.

Well he is a bit rank, why should i take lectures of that dusty old cunt?

You are a woolly liberal

Plus he was wrong.

Only on his revolutionary theory but not on his criticism of capitalism.

Social Darwinism is an antiscientific meme. The real world of nature bears far more similarity to anarcho-communism.

and not a single argument was made that day

Interesting recommendation, thanks.

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=7CCFEAEA8DA4849501AAB4F8EAC4F177

Do you have an example or are you just going to make general statements like a faggot?

firstly you need to relax, I obviously see you are too emotionally invested in the point you are trying to make.
I mentioned in the OP that I see anissinov's view of history being somewhat unfounded and wanted to build a discussion from this. It would be unproductive to turn a fine thread into a shouting match because of your insecurity.

hahaha I am relaxed faggot but you gotta be outcho maaaaaahnd if you think I'm going to read some shit that's not already on my favorite uzbekistani glass blowing forum. PDF or green text it or fuck off. Stop trying to start discussion without having an interesting refutable claim; fucking "conversation" enabler SJW garbage.

...

You're conflating conservatism with reaction.

Reactionaries so-called have an anti-historical orientation; they (generally) do not believe in linear time, or sometimes even the passage of time at all (why in general right-wingers have sympathies with the Vedas, Hinduism generally, most forms of spirituality where the cyclical view of time dominates). What they want is generally never grounded in history except by necessity to show examples of instances where the desired right-wing authoritarian regime was able to seize power. However, they are usually quick to note just as many historical examples of the degeneration of this authority.

Evola says all this explicitly in Men Among the Ruins.

youtube.com/watch?v=8VGSMM2oJgw

fuck off you insufferable retard, who outside of reddit and normiebook actually types like this

me, apparently, faggot. Never had and never will have any account on reddit or facebook or twitter. eat shit.

And I talk like that when ass hurt liberals (who try to pretend like they're having a real discussion on the internet when they're just bloviating their own truisms to each other) are trying to act dignified when I call them out for being vague-talking vague-thinking idiots with no point. Bags full of emotional waste.

Use more scientistic buzzwords next time, like this faggot OP; it will make more of your fellow rats come to your aid.

well preformed user!
your use of straw manning my intentions coupled with your over-the-top pathetic ass hurt have undoubtedly added great content to this thread.
I will make sure to take these deep and insightful points into consideration before I post a thread that is so deeply triggering to your feeble sense of intellectual and emotional security

I'm willing to have a discussion dude, I'm just waiting for you to make a more detailed point.

Why exactly do you object to a cyclical view of time?

...

I feel as if it is some what disingenuous to say Human is cyclical when there seem to be evidence pointing to the contrary. I believe similar things can occur throughout the ages being that matter interacts with matter in a certain way, however to call this cyclical seems off. My complaint would be with (as I mentioned) the reactionary view of history that
heavy handed leaders=good times
good times=soft leaders
soft leaders=bad times
bad times= heavy handed leaders

Now this in'sent to say that this does not have some truth to it. One example that is normally pointed to would be the roman empire. However to stop at this level of analysis and say that its fall was because of soft leaders (let alone democracy) seem to lack rigor. We could also take into account the fact that technology during the time was to poor to maintain control over a large empire, or that outside pressure from barbarian tribes led to overspending on poor military campaigns, or that corrupt unchecked power helped to bankrupt the empire.

Another example of this theory not quite working out would be the fall of European monarchies. All heavy handed absolutist monarchies in Europe where ultimately abolished via revolution (ie, France & Russia) and only the weaker ones where able to survive by delegating more and more of their power to a democratic parliament. Not only did these countries become more democratic, they also appeared to become more stable as a result of this liberalization. An example of this stability I feel can bee seem in the fact that the last great European conflicts (ww1 & ww2) where not initiated by liberal democratic regimes, but 1st by old rivaling monarchies, and 2nd by authoritarians trying to mimic the might of these old monarchies.

A view of the history of man will show that through-out the ancient and middle ages technological and economic development seemed to remain relatively linear. The lack of information spreading that resulted from this lack of technological ability seemed to push the scared huddled masses to a single leader, who, due to the fact that its is impossible for one person to lead a large nation, would ether lead it into ruin, or inevitable delegate his powers to feudal lords and ministers, creating a tension that would often lead to wars and civil unrest. The advent of things like the printing press and the telegraph gave the public more ability to organise themselves, thus making the role of a "strong leader" even more obsolete. I could be mistaken, but I feel that this is a somewhat more insightful way to view history then the latter. However I have just recently started reading ideas on the cyclical view of history so I could be mistaken, that is why I made this thread.

*Human History

Neoreactionaries are much closer to ancaps than actual reactionaries. They mostly just hate democracy.