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.
Online dating danger statistics 2013
I tried to give a more complete summary of its beliefs in Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet Sized Nutshell.
0.1.1: Will this FAQ be a rebuttal the arguments in that summary? 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. In particular, the movement seems to be divided between those who want a feudal/aristocratic monarchy, those who want an absolute monarchy, and those who want some form of state-as-corporation.
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.
In general, this FAQ chooses two Reactionary bloggers as its foils – Mencius Moldbug of Unqualified Reservations, and Michael Anissimov of More Right.
Mencius is probably the most famous Reactionary, one of the founders of the movement, and an exceptionally far-thinking and knowledgeable writer.
[Edit 3/2014: I no longer endorse all the statements in this document.