The "dark triad" of three personality traits: Sometimes called "dark personality. Psychopathy is a psychological condition in which the individual shows a profound lack of empathy for the feelings of others, a willingness to engage in immoral and antisocial behavior for short-term gains, and extreme egocentricity. Psychopaths do not have the fear response experienced by most of us to the potential negative consequences of criminal or risky behavior and are relatively insensitive to punishment.
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.I. I got Jordan Peterson’s Twelve Rules For Life for the same reason as the other , people: to make fun of the lobster thing. Or if not the lobster thing, then the neo-Marxism thing, or the transgender thing, or the thing where the neo-Marxist transgender lobsters want to steal your precious bodily fluids.
Feb 13, · Francis demonstrates his cognitive dissonance by writing a preface to a book on child sex abuse committed by clergy Before reading the preface which Francis wrote keep in mind just six of the recent clerical sex abuses of children involving Francis.
Articles & Blog Posts by Thomas Lifson. Obama's monument to himself covertly grabbing $ million of Illinois taxpayers' money for 'privately funded' project. The American Empire. By Wade Frazier. Revised July Purpose and Disclaimer. Timeline. Introduction. The New World Before “Discovery,” and the First Contacts.
Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin Trevor Noah and The World's Fakest News Team tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and pop culture.