But a system of repression that doesn’t involve obvious state violence is little different in effect than one that does.
If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery? In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone.Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked.And just as well try to give a quick summary of the sweeping elegaic paeans to a bygone age of high culture and noble virtues that is Reaction.But there is some content, and some of it is disconcerting.I have heard the following from a bunch of people, one of whom was me six months ago: “I keep on reading all these posts by really smart people who identify as Reactionaries, and I don’t have any idea what’s going on.
They seem to be saying things that are either morally repugnant or utterly ridiculous.
Patriarchy doesn’t have an actual Patriarch coordinating men in their efforts to keep down women.
It’s just that when lots of people share some really strong cultural norms, they manage to self-organize into a kind of immune system for rejecting new ideas.
Trying to sum up their ideas seems like a good way to first of all get a reference point for what their ideas are, and second of all to make it clearer why I think they deserve a rebuttal.
We’ll start with the meta-level question of how confident we should be that our society is better than its predecessors in important ways.
Having judged past societies positively, we’ll then look at what aspects of their cultures, governments, and religions made them so successful, and whether we could adopt those to modern life.