Lilla is tired of losing elections, and tired of watching his own side sabotage itself. In an e-mail exchange, Lilla answered a few questions I put to him about the book: The contention is that the binding you seek to restore was only achieved by suppressing difference in unjust and intolerable ways.
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.
As traditional ideas cede to their Progressive replacements, the fabric of society tears apart on measurable ways.
The present system has every incentive to portray itself as superior to all past systems. Reactionaries point out this is not the case, and actually see present society in a state of severe decline, pointing to historically high levels of crime, suicide, government and household debt, increasing time preference, and low levels of civic participation and self-reported happiness as a few examples of a current cultural and historical crisis.
Reactionaries usually avoid getting this specific, and with good reason.It was one of the rules which, above all others, made Doctor Franklin the most amiable of men in society, "never to contradict anybody." If he was urged to announce an opinion, he did it rather by asking questions, as if for information, or by suggesting doubts.
A friend of a friend told me that he tried to set the price of his game to some figure or other but that Valve vetoed it and set it to something else.
This week’s featured content is Douglas Rushkoff‘s new essay entitled Open Source Democracy. It’s a 70 page essay (available as a free downloadable PDF) that explores the future of politics in an interactive world. It was created for the UK thinktank Demos, and is available under a Creative Commons License.
For those unfamiliar with Rushkoff’s . Douglas Rushkoff; Born February 18, (age 57) New York City, New York: how to help people (especially children) effectively analyze and question the media they consume, as well as how to cultivate intention and agency.
He has theorized on such media as religion, culture, politics, and money. Open Source Democracy A Demos . Michael Edwards' openDemocracy essay, "Philanthrocapitalism: (Demos/Young Foundation, March creating low-cost housing or evolving our democracy?
True, using open-source principles to. Building cybersecurity skills is a must; paying a lot for the education is optional. Here are seven options for increasing knowledge without depleting a budget.