Conversation

The great weakness of all reactionary ideologies is that there are more admissible solutions to the (often accurate) abstract societal models they induce from history and want to admit. So they are forced to arbitrarily limit the solutions to those already traced by history.
3
19
This is like discovering Euclidean geometry, formalizing it axiomatically, discovering that you can't actually undermine non-parallel-line geometries, and then legislating that only the Euclidean parallel line postulate is legal.
2
6
It doesn't work. The degeneracy (in a mathematical sense) of history as a solution to a system of psychohistorical equations, once recognized, inevitably evolves past the degeneracy to realize a fuller set of solutions.
1
5
I've often wondered why my writing seems to appeal to a subset of reactionary types even though I'm openly anti-reactionary. I think it's because I share a bunch of analytical lenses with both left and right reactionaries, but then go on gleefully to alt-parallel-postulates
2
5
For example, my gervais principle analysis strikes many lefties as marxist in spirit (correct) and they draw "overthrow the sociopaths" as the lesson, while I ignore that conclusion and gleefully explore possibility space of sociopath designs, accepting their existence as a given
1
9
Otoh, it's also popular with reactionaries with monarchist etc sensibilities who take the analysis as validation of "powerful sociopaths ought to rule" but then I run with the opposite conclusion that slacking and mediocrity are great ways to counterprogram sociopath ambition
Replying to
In each case, where I part ways with reactionaries is in allowing that the future will always admit more technically correct solutions to the model than you might ideologically want to, based on getting functionally fixed in historical examples
9