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.
If the Reactionaries can muster some data saying that something has been getting better up until 2005 but declining from 2005 to the present, that doesn’t cut it.
If something else was worsening from 1950 to 1980 but has been improving since then, that doesn’t cut it either.
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.
It is meant to rebut some common beliefs held by the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction.
0.1: What are the common beliefs of the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction?
In particular the difference between feudal monarchies and divine-right-of-kings monarchies seems to be sort of lost on many of them.
Part 2 of this FAQ mostly draws from Michael’s feudal perspective and Part 4 is entirely based on Moldbug’s corporation-based ideas.
0.3: 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.
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.