March 12, at
I no longer endorse all the statements in this document. I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do not; this complaint seems reasonable.
This document needs extensive revision to stay fair and correct, but such revision is currently lower priority than other major projects. Until then, I apologize for any inaccuracies or misrepresentations.
What is this FAQ?
It is meant to rebut some common beliefs held by the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction.
What are the common beliefs of the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction? Neoreaction is a political ideology supporting a return to traditional ideas of government and society, especially traditional monarchy and an ethno-nationalist state.
It sees itself opposed to modern ideas like democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, and secularism.
Will this FAQ be a rebuttal the arguments in that summary? Some but not all.
I worry I may have done too good a job of steelmanning Reactionary positions in that post, emphasizing what I thought were strong arguments, sometimes even correct arguments, but not really the arguments Reactionaries believed or considered most important.
Some of them seem really dumb to me and I excluded them from the previous piece, but they make it in here. Other points from the previous post are real Reactionary beliefs and make it in here as well. Do all Reactionaries believe the same things? Even more confusingly, sometimes the same people seem to switch among the three without giving any indication they are aware that they are doing so.
In particular the difference between feudal monarchies and divine-right-of-kings monarchies seems to be sort of lost on many of them.
Mencius is probably the most famous Reactionary, one of the founders of the movement, and an exceptionally far-thinking and knowledgeable writer. Michael is also quite smart, very prolific, and best of all for my purposes unusually willing to state Reactionary theories plainly and explicitly in so many words and detail the evidence that he thinks supports them.
Mencius usually supports a state-as-corporation model and Michael seems to be more to the feudal monarchy side, with both occasionally paying lip service to divine-right-of-kings absolutism as well. Are you going to treat Reaction and Progressivism as real things?
One of the problems in exercises like this is how much to take political labels seriously. Both combine many very diverse ideas, and sometimes exactly who falls on what side will be exactly the point at issue.
Although debating the meaning of category words is almost never productive, I feel like in that case I have more than enough excuse.
Is everything getting worse? It is a staple of Reactionary thought that everything is getting gradually worse.Latest breaking news, including politics, crime and celebrity. Find stories, updates and expert opinion.
SACRAMENTO — Some sex offenders would be required to carry their driver’s licenses or identification cards at all times under a new bill by Assemblyman Paul Cook of Yucca Valley. Hudak, Andy, Low-risk sex offenders should be treated rather than locked up; Andy Hudak, Daily Interlake, Jan 03, The actual statistic is a percent re-offense rate over three years!
This was also across ALL levels of risk. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., speaks at a July 25, , news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. A person with knowledge of the situation says .
with. >> facebook didn't allow didn't allow access by former sex offenders back that's correct, justice gilbert. there is a prohibition on facebook and some of the other major.
>> that is facebook's choice. >> that's correct. certainly, the state has implemented this law to be a deterrent so that these offenders will not go on facebook. whereas. You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.” Read more: ‘You took away my worth’: A victim’s powerful message.