UC users only Stenger, Josh. The persistence of whiteness: P47 Whitney, Allison. Sugar, spice, and everything nice:
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?USA Today: If only Romney's supporters would act more like Mormon missionaries, the bias against Mitt would melt away.
Mormon-owned Deseret News: Robert P. George is . Mar 05, · The superficially most compelling case for a lurking new anti-Semitism is the comparative one. It is said that the world is replete with worse cases of oppression and repression; if the international community focuses “obsessively” on Israel, it must be due to an anti-Jewish bias.
Children and Teens Videotapes in the Media Resources Center, UC Berkeley. Note that there is no reason to assume that it isn't possible to create a better society. Thus, some of these utopias might actually work. However, the distinctive characteristic of a Mary Suetopia is that it goes beyond just being a perfect society - it's a perfect society filled with perfect people, who show enthusiastic support for the author's society's ideology.
START HERE IF YOU KNOW WHAT SUBGENRE CATEGORY YOU LIKE ALIENS ON EARTH: they came from outer space ALTERNATE WORLDS: history might have happened differently ANTIGRAVITY: what goes up may not come down BAMBI'S CHILDREN: animals who speak, think, or act human BEAM ME UP: matter .
[Edit 3/ 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 .