Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' title='Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' />The Anti Reactionary FAQ Slate Star CodexEdit 32. 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 This is the Anti Reactionary FAQ. Maccabees Ladies of the Maccabees. Knights of the Maccabees. Variously known as the Knights and Ladies of the Maccabees, Maccabees of the World, Macabees, Women. BOSTON AP Al Horford turned back the clock in his return from a twogame absence with a concussion. Horford scored 21 points on 8of9. Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' title='Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' />H R 244 Omnibus Appropriations Vote Date May 3, 2017 Vote AYE Bad Vote. The Consolidated Appropriations Act or omnibus bill H. R. 244 would provide 1. Latest trending topics being covered on ZDNet including Reviews, Tech Industry, Security, Hardware, Apple, and Windows. Includes downloads, cheats, reviews, and articles. Aic78xx Sys. Europe is a continent located entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere. Europe is bordered by the Arctic Ocean to the north, the. Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' title='Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' />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. I tried to give a more complete summary of its beliefs in Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet Sized Nutshell. Will this FAQ be a rebuttal the arguments in that summary Some but not all. Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' title='Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' />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. In this FAQ, I will be attacking not steel men but what as far as I can tell are actual Reactionary positions. 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 Obviously not. In particular, the movement seems to be divided between those who want a feudalaristocratic monarchy, those who want an absolute monarchy, and those who want some form of state as corporation. 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. In general, this FAQ chooses two Reactionary bloggers as its foils Mencius Moldbug of Unqualified Reservations, and Michael Anissimov of More Right. Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' title='Rise Of Nations Mac Lion' />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. Part 2 of this FAQ mostly draws from Michaels feudal perspective and Part 4 is entirely based on Moldbugs corporation based ideas. Are you going to treat Reaction and Progressivism as real thingsGrudgingly, yes. One of the problems in exercises like this is how much to take political labels seriously. Both Reaction and Progressivism are vast umbrella concepts on whose definition no one can agree. Both combine many very diverse ideas, and sometimes exactly who falls on what side will be exactly the point at issue. Part of Part 3 will be an attempt to define Progressivism, but for now Im going to just sweep all of this under the rug and pretend that Reactionary and Progressive or for that matter leftist and rightist have obvious well defined meanings that are exactly what you think they are. The one point where this becomes very important is in the discussion over the word demotist in Part 2. 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. Michael Anissimov writes 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. If the Reactionaries can muster some data saying that something has been getting better up until 2. If something else was worsening from 1. 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. I will not require complete concordance between all Western countries, but if the Anglosphere countries, France, Germany, and Japan seem split about fifty fifty between growth and decay in a certain indicator, blaming Progressivism isnt going to cut it. So, without further ado, lets start where Michael starts with suicide. Is suicide becoming more common Heres the US suicide rate from 1. In those forty years, considered by many the heyday of the leftist movement, forty years encompassing the Great Society, the civil rights movement, the explosion of feminism onto the public consciousness, the decline of the traditional family, etc, etcsuicide rates dropped about 2. What evidence have the Reactionaries cite for their side Michael cites a New York Times article pointing out that suicide rates rose from 1. Apparently my new job is reminding Reactionaries that they cannot blindly trust New York Times articles to give them the whole truth. Suicide rates did rise from 1. But if were going to blame leftism for rising suicide rates its kind of weird that it would choose the decade we had a Republican President, House, Senate, and Supreme Court to start increasing. A more likely scenario is that it had something to do with the GIANT NEVER ENDING RECESSION going on at the time. As we mentioned above, since Reactionaries believe that Progressivism has been advancing simultaneously in many different countries it is worthwhile to check whether other nations show the same trends as the United States.