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.
If something else was worsening from 1950 to 1980 but has been improving since then, that doesn’t cut it either.
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 2005 but declining from 2005 to the present, that doesn’t cut it.
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.
Both “Reaction” and “Progressivism” are vast umbrella concepts on whose definition no one can agree.
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.
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.
Michael Anissimov writes: The present system has every incentive to portray itself as superior to all past systems.