Things change radically in the more civilized areas of space. In the crowded orbital space around a heavily populated planet, with dozens of space stations, zillions of expensive satellites, hundreds of other spacecraft in tight traffic lanes, and ship using antimatter fuel; the authorities will demand that all spacecraft be up to code with perfect maintenance records. This means periodic inspections by the Spacecraft Agency, in order for the ships to keep their certification current.
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. Now that Michael has revealed the domains in which he is critiquing modern society, we can start to double-check them to see whether Progressivism has indeed sent everything to Hell in a handbasket.
But I must set some strict standards here. To support the Reactionary thesis, I will want to see long-term and unmistakeable negative trends in these indicators. Nearly all Reactionaries agree that the advance of Progressivism has been a long-term affair, going on since the French Revolution if not before.
I will not require a completely monotonic downward trend, but neither will I accept a blip of one or two years in a generally positive trend as proving all modern civilization is bankrupt.
Likewise, if something has been getting worse in Britain but not the United States, or vice versa, that will not suffice either. Progressivism is supposed to be a worldwide movement, stronger than the vagaries of local politics. Is suicide becoming more common?
What evidence have the Reactionaries cite for their side?The two most important of Camus' plays are Caligula (performed , written ) and Cross Purpose ().
In Caligula, a young Roman emperor comes face to face with the terrible lack of meaning in the universe after the senseless death of his beloved sister Drusilla. Barry, Our article on Wilfred Owen ecplores this in some depth including his relationship with Vidal Sassoon Siegfried webkandii.com would also be worth checking out the references at the bottom of the Wilfred Owen article for more information.
Capitalistroadster , 26 September (UTC). I think you meant Siegfried Sassoon there, a slight difference! Oct 30, · Words: Length: 8 Pages Document Type: Essay Paper #: It is necessary to control the workers and make them dependent on the government.
The policy also makes it possible for the government to direct all its resources on a single project -- . K Video/Review/Essay Contest!
is called "Caligula Effect." Since most people place more value on rare things, if something is prohibited or restricted, it will tend to get a lot of attention. the reason media use "entry level Freud/Jung" is because advanced psychology will not make sense to most normal people who havent studied that.
Monsters History s Most Evil Men And Women The preferred method of torture of Vlad Dracul th century prince of Wallachia was to attach a horse to each of the victim s. Dear Twitpic Community - thank you for all the wonderful photos you have taken over the years.
We have now placed Twitpic in an archived state.