Fane speaker dating

Rated 4.5/5 based on 541 customer reviews

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.] This is the Anti-Reactionary FAQ.

Other points from the previous post are real Reactionary beliefs and make it in here as well. 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.

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.

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.

Michael Anissimov writes: The present system has every incentive to portray itself as superior to all past systems.

Part 2 of this FAQ mostly draws from Michael’s feudal perspective and Part 4 is entirely based on Moldbug’s corporation-based ideas.

0.3: 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.

If the Reactionaries can muster some data saying that something has been getting better up until 2005 but declining from 2005 to the present, that doesn’t cut it.

If something else was worsening from 1950 to 1980 but has been improving since then, that doesn’t cut it either.

Leave a Reply