> Why do you say that? To me, it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc.

> Why do you say that? To me, it just seems like more neo-reactionary rhetoric. It couldn't be that democracy, international institutions (such as the UN), etc. have changed the world - that we built a better world. That would be a threat to reactionaryism. Because it’s the significant thing that has changed. We’ve always had political institutions, and it’s clear how useful those have historically been at preventing war. What we haven’t had is the ability to destroy entire countries (and likely the world) at the press of a button. It’s not that I consider it desirable that that is the main reason, but I do consider it likely.