Talk:Neoreactionary movement/Archive1

Transhumanism?
Transhumanism? How can something that envisions a new future/form of technology be reactionary if reactionary by definition means "reversing the wheel of history", to paraphrase Marx, or the "status quo ante"? --P3A58NT86 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably the result of crank magnetism combined with cognitive dissonance. Anyways the "reactionary" really refers to government (monarchy), politics (quasi-fascist dictatorship) and culture (extreme social conservatism, racism, sexism), not technology. ClothCoat (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And, for that matter, the allegiance of some of them to the Austrian school isn't exactly consistent with the whole pose, either., , , and the rest of their other mentors would have nothing to do with this free-market nonsense.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why LessWrong gets lumped in with those guys. LW has some problems but last I checked they aren't advocating monarchy.   Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]   [留]  12:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, it's because LessWrong used to attract such types, at least before the establishment of More Right. The LessWrong crowd takes pride in being open for discussion of ideas that are considered taboo elsewhere.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More Right? What's that? Some sort of Conservalesswrong? Wehpudicabok   [話]   [変]   [留]  07:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because LW is pretty much the only place in the blogosphere outside their own blogs who gave them any attention - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael Anissimov (the neoreactionary guy the article cites) used to be the Advocacy Director at Singularity Institute. Basically, a bunch of ideological reactionaries who used to form a single group have split into those who are most reactionary towards science, and those who are most reactionary towards democracy (those pro-monarchist neoreactionaries). Dmytry (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the Bay Area is a strange place - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.moreright.net/reconciling-transhumanismand-neoreaction/ 82.27.120.14 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

social capital stub
The social capital link was red, so I'm adding a stub with the some information from Wikipedia. I'm not sure how the term is meant here, though. -- ☠ MarkAHershberger ☢ (talk) ☣ 20:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and added a link to the WP article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Cathedral
Could somebody who understands what this "Cathedral" thing is write about it in the main article. From what I understand its a loose progressive conspiracy that dupes citizens into not considering anti-democratic movements viable, making it more or less the same as the Bourgeoisie in the Marxist theory of false consciousness. Is that about right? ClothCoat (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty close, but it's not all that loose. From what I understand the neoreactionaries see "Cathedral" as controlled and orchestrated by universities, specifically Harvard and Yale.  Although I've also heard one of them blame UC Berkeley in the 60s for giving the keys to Western civilization to the Morlocks. --Marlow (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's a planned conspiracy? God these guys are crazy, and they think of even the most right-wing faction of the GOP as being "progressive". They're similar to Glenn Beck and hardline libertarians in that the word "Progressive" seems to mean "anything I don't like." I suppose that makes sense, given that most of these guys are techno-libertarians and anarcho capitalists who "gave up" on the public because they could be bought with bread and circuses. Goes to show that "libertarianism" doesn't always translate into being pro-democracy, or at the very least some libertarians are willing to quickly give it up in the name of "free" markets and combating the "librul elite". ClothCoat (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar though I don't know what exactly that entails in this context Nullahnung (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not related - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As Scott Alexander puts it, they walk a fine line. They can't say that progressive policies are supported and in some cases developed by regular rational people acting in their own self interest because that would make the whole progressive movement seem reasonable and insufficiently insidious.  No, the sheeple must have been duped by some elite group.  But they can't say that it's a regular old conspiracy by the lizard men, JEWS, or Illuminati because that would make them look stupid and irrational.  Instead they come up with the "Cathedral" a "distributed conspiracy", one for which there can be no smoking gun, no deep throat, no Protocols of the Elders of Zion; a conspiracy which cannot be disproved. --Marlow (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually find this idea of a 'distributed conspiracy' interesting, and one I'm prepared to accept. The financial system of late capitalism seems one; no one appears to have planned or (until its later stages) intended it.  It arose at the confluence of many streams of profit-seeking and rent-seeking behaviors.  There's no person or group with their hands at the throttle.  It exerts a powerful influence on all levels of human society, and causes a whole lot of counterintuitive behavior.  If there were a 'distributed conspiracy', this is what it might look like.  The distributed conspiracy of the SSSM and progressive egalitarianism might exist, but it seems feeble by comparison.  Escape academia and you've largely escaped its grasp. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to agree with your views on our current financial/industrial system. It has a fascinating mind of its own, a drive towards ultimate optimization with regard for almost nothing else. It seems to be beyond the control of any individual or group and it is certainly far more powerful than any progressive movement towards an equitable society.  Although I do think that it has subsumed parts of the social progressive movement simply because they further optimize the system.  Diversity seems to actually improve the efficiency of the work force, especially at higher levels where creativity is required and thus we see this drive to improve equity, not because of some inherent value it might have, but because it actually helps the bottom line.  The problem with the neoreactionary idea of the distributed conspiracy is that concept of the "Cathedral" can simply replaced with the concept of culture, something that is present in any society.  What the neoreactionary argues, I believe, is not that there's a powerful and largely unreachable cultural force directing human activities (sometimes in a less than beneficent directions), but that contemporary progressive society is directed in a top down manner by these academics who are manipulating the system towards particular ends and stifling any thought that goes outside the bounds of what they deem acceptable.  This is the part that I think is bullshit.  Neoreactionaries seem to be fond of saying that outsiders have failed to grasp the concept of the Cathedral, so maybe I'm reading it wrong, but if this "distributed conspiracy" is simply the normative force incontemporary socio/cultural body than this is hardly a revolutionary idea or something that is unique to the current system and if it's this top down conspiracy orchestrated by some guys at Yale, than it's nonsense.  --Marlow (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an opponent of capitalism, nor would I call its development and operation a conspiracy, "distributed" or otherwise, but I do agree it's generally rudderless, broadly speaking. Communism (as a large-scale economic system, not small-scale informal communes which one might describe as proto-communist) grew out of an ideology invented by some dudes in the 19th century, who'd given it a name and platform decades before any nation attempted to implement it. What we know as modern capitalism, on the other hand, grew pretty organically out of trends of social and economic interplay in the past few centuries or so (I don't wish to squabble over how old the system actually is, hence the qualifier "modern" to denote the industrial/post-industrial system we know today), being given a name later. Also, I don't consider Adam Smith or others founding thinkers, as Smith was just attempting to describe a system that already existed rather than inventing a new one. I don't consider laissez-faire thinkers to have given it a formal platform, either, especially considering that the laissez-faire types, Keynesians, and moderate social democrats can all be regarded as being within the "capitalist" umbrella. As for the neoreactionary concept of "Cathedral" in describing modern society, it seems like a way to make otherwise unsubstantiated claims of brainwashing against people who reject their ideas, rather than simply admitting outright that people just don't like them. Perhaps this is a straw argument, but it's the impression I'm getting. Whatever the case, it appears many neoreactionaries have admitted it would take some really disruptive catastrophe for them to take power (much in the same way the Nazis exploited widespread economic turmoil in the Weimar Republic), and they eagerly look forward to such events. The One They Call Mars (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary capitalism is rather fangless in dethroning an obstructive government, as seen the world over. And having a military trumps everything. We are living in a fluke (in as much as nothing is permanent) caused by the outcome of WWII, rather than something which is the high and mighty will of the people --82.128.250.221 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still better than Marxism. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure if the BoN is a Marxist or a neoreactionary/apologist of same. (I should note, however, that it appears many neoreactionaries go back even further than WWII and claim world trends took a wrong turn at the time of the French Revolution or even the Enlightenment, hence why a number of them claim to adhere to a "Dark Enlightenment.") Either way, the BoN's assertion seems to imply there's some sort of "natural" state of affairs or course of action to which the world is "supposed" to return and that the "true" will of the people must be aligned with this imaginary constant. As you might guess from reading this, I think this is a crock, and I believe the "will of the people" amounts simply to what most people happen to desire and will to do. If what people desire and will to do today is the product of postwar thought, that's the will of the people, full stop. The One They Call Mars (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Just examine your own bloody beliefs for one second! You probably regard the entire conservative movement (including these neoreactionary types) as just this sort of unplanned, "distributed conspiracy". Forget for a second that you are utterly correct about everything and that all your political conceits are distilled from the purest rationality. Tricky, I know. The idea that elite groups lead society is also utterly unremarkable and consistent with commonly accepted history. Also, the neoreactionaries DO believe that regular rational people acting in their own self-interest have created this "Cathedral". They obviously don't believe that lizard men or illuminati are responsible, which is why they do not claim such a thing. Your remarks are truly baffling. I am NOT a reactionary/conservative BTW just in case you're ready to insult me too. There are actual criticisms to be made of these "dark enlightenment" types, but you're so far off the mark here it's sad. I'm sorry to say it but they would run rings around you in a debate given the confused quality of your remarks. Pro-democracy = correct and rational. Anti-democracy = mistaken and irrational. The really strange part is the total unfamiliarity with arguments against democracy which are thousands of years old. The list of renowned and respected thinkers who expressed anti-democratic arguments is fairly extensive. (note: not an argument for their validity, just trying to demonstrate context)Oldoddjobs (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you may have read my flippant comment a little too literally. Read what I wrote more carefully.  I never wrote that neoreactionaries believe in Jews or lizardmen.  I was using those beliefs as a comparison in order to place the neoreactionary idea of a distributed conspiracy relative to other, more extreme and specific, conspiratorial ideas.  I also never wrote that neoreactionaries didn't believe that regular people acting in self-interest created the Cathedral.  I don't actually know what motive neoreactionaries attribute to the founders of the Cathedral. What I wrote was that neoreactionaries don't believe, or perhaps don't want to believe, that regular non-elite people don't like neoreactionary ideas because the ideas themselves are bad for them.  Instead they believe that the regular joes have been duped by a top-down conspiracy to reject via kneejerk all their brilliant discoveries.  --Marlow (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me that an "unplanned, distributed conspiracy" is not a conspiracy at all, by definition. The problem with the neoreactionary concept of Cathedral, as I understand it, is that they're attempting to describe a non-conspiracy using language that makes it sound like a conspiracy. I'm not sure if this is their intention, but it certainly gives them the benefit of being able to rally people with conspiracist rhetoric and theory-crafting while simultaneously retaining plausible deniability if someone points out that Cathedral resembles a conspiracy theory. I don't deny that elite groups lead society, and I also find that idea to be unremarkable and uncontroversial (the ideas of some philosopher are more likely to spread over a greater distance than those of some beggar). They may very well believe that Cathedral was created by regular rational people acting in their own self-interest, but the agency-denying portion of their "theory" lies with what appears to be this implicit (if not explicit) assertion that the masses believe democracy is better only because the Ivory Tower elites told them so. Their idea that modern pro-democracy beliefs are the result of dogma put out by the Cathedral also carries the implication that rational people would reject democracy if they knew the "truth" and examined the systems fairly. It would be inconvenient for their ideology if they openly admitted that many people look at the systems, examine the pros and cons, and conclude that they still find democracy most appealing. The One They Call Mars (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. They don't want the people to democratically reject democracy - they don't seek democratic legitimacy, because they don't have it and they know they will never have it. They think most people are stupid and/or avaricious and unworthy of even the small political power that a vote grants them. That is why some anarchocapitalists find neoreaction so attractive: because they think the same way about "common folk".--Greenrd (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right about neoreactionaries believing that the average joe shouldn't have what the political power he currently has. I could be wrong, but the point I was trying to make is that the neoreactionary position seems to favor the idea that the average joe's support for democracy/multiculturalism/whatever stems, not from his own self-interest, but from being duped by the conspiracy of the Cathedral.  The fact that society at large rejects their position, which they believe to be rationally self-evident, requires an explanation.  The Cathedral functions, in part, as that explanation. --Marlow (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankfurt School
A valid comparison, although I certainly prefer the gnarled prose of someone like Adorno to the pretentious garblygook spouted by some of theses neoreactionaries. I'm curious about the footnote that says Dialectic of Enlightenment presaged a movement like this. Any chance you could give me a page number or section? --Marlow (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because they are both counter-enlightenment. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been aeons since I've read the original. But my understanding is that Adorno took a position not too far from de Maistre: reason, elevated to be the sole reliable guide, leads to a crisis of legitimacy, because human social ties are not founded on reason.  There does seem to be something of the same thing going on with at least some of the neo-reactionaries, and why they desire ethnically homogeneous societies, believing them to be bound by shared kinship.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that there is an interesting similarity here and your reading of Adorno is, at least in my appraisal, correct. Adorno claims that the Enlightenment value of reason, when raised to the point of ultimate authority as he believed it was, subsumes the other Enlightenment values like truth and humanity and leads to a society where nothing can rise above the instrumental -- a means to an end.   I got the impression you were saying that in "prefiguring" neoreactionary thought the Frankfurt school gang actually predicted its future emergence, rather than just embodying some of its qualities as I now understand you to mean.  Might want to clarify the footnote.  What's interesting is that paleocons like Pat Buchanan, who I believe are borderline neoreactionaries, are always railing against the Frankfurt School giving it more or less the same status as the "Cathedral".  --Marlow (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Cathedral is like the "Cultural Marxism" of the neo-reactionaries. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. --Marlow (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Smerdis, (off-topic?) this neoreactionary belief in social trust based on shared kinship reminds me of "in-group bias". The question is how should one react to "in-group bias"? Are all biases inherently bad and if so, why? To what extent is one morally obliged to (or even CAPABLE of) resist a bias once it has been recognised? To what extent is one obliged to conform to existing in-group bias in the name of peace and social cooperation? Whatever the answer is, it is not immediately obvious. The Adorno/de Maistre position as you have paraphrased here sounds eminently reasonable to me as a positive observation of what humans actually get up to, and not some crankish frenzied bigoted insufficently progressive blah blah blah. I had imagined that the rationalwiki would not be satisfied with calling someone a "racist", as it begs too many questions to inquiring minds. What IS racism? Does it consist of bad thoughts? Are racists mentally ill, deserving of help and sympathy? Or demons intent on usurping all that is holy and true? - diversity, democracy, equality etc,. This wiki seems weirdly incurious about the phenomenon, content instead to deploy the word as a useful slur to signal to your own bien pensant group.Oldoddjobs (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Adorno is pretty far from what you're talking about. His argument was, primarily, a moral argument; that rationalism when taken as the sole arbiter in social decision making creates a society in which leading a moral or good life essentially impossible.  He certainly wasn't concerned that rationalism and the enlightenment were impeding our natural racists biases. --Marlow (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this will make everyone feel much more informed
Eric Raymond has a series of blog posts planned on the topic - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is what appears to be the first of those planned posts. The One They Call Mars (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

MRA?
I'm pretty certain neoreactionaries would consider the MRM a progressive movement: Anissimov calls the MRM "whining" (and BTW is explicitly anti-manosphere as well) 96.227.198.31 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like any other such loosely defined movement. Not all of the themes are going to be shared by all of the participants.  While Anissimov may well reject MRA as "whining" (I guess Anissimov is not entirely removed from reality yet....), other participants such as Roosh V, Chateau Heartiste, and The Rational Male seem much more sympathetic to masculism of various sorts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Smerdis, I'm not surprised. Subfactional differences emerge all the time.  Austrian Schoolers, for example, are split between people who think private banks would use safe, sensible gold if it weren't for filthy government money interfering and people who think private banks would all create competing currencies, continually emerging and failing in a testament to the glories of a dynamic free market.   18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Smerdis hit the nail on the head by pointing out that the Neoreactionary movement/"Dark Enlightenment" is highly factional. I'd also point out that MRAs are factional as well. On one hand, you have those who purport to desire gender equality but claim feminism, while it began as a noble movement, "went too far" and has become a PC female supremacist movement. (I disagree with this view, but it's not as insane or anger-inducing as what's ahead.) On the other hand, you have hardcore reactionaries such as RooshV, Chateau Heartiste, and the loveshies who claim that letting women vote, get jobs outside the home, and have any sort of equality with men was a huge mistake and has resulted in women oppressing "beta males" by refusing to sleep with them in favor of "alpha males" (which, to be honest, looks like nothing more than an effort to frame their own personal frustrations and jealousies in a glorified social conspiracy theory). Unsurprisingly, several members of the latter group saw enough overlap between neoreaction and their own views to get on board with neoreaction, even if folks such as Anissimov don't appreciate it. The One They Call Mars (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The latter are called "redpillers", by the way, and are a separate group from MRAs. While MRAs are sane yet massively misguided, redpillers are just batshit.
 * Anyway, what movement doesn't fall to factionalism at some point? Even atheism fell into this: New Atheism, Atheism+, antitheism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism; this seems to happen whenever your central ideas are too broad (like atheism) or too vague (like neoreactionaries). --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any reason to distinguish redpillers from any other MRA. What the fuck - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, having spent a bit of time mucking around "Chateau Heartiste" (trust me, I'd rather go back to reading Moldbug....) they do seem to share a number of similarities, including the use of normative arguments based on evolutionary biology, and various prescriptions for human sexual behavior they imagine flow from it. Any successful movement like this will have several paths that lead to it, and PUA woo is apparently one of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Through a bit of procrasturbatory research tonight, I found that Red Pillers seem to distinguish themselves from MRAs by saying that while MRAs want to "fix" what they see as wrong with society, Red Pillers accept the current situation as reality and aim to adapt their own lifestyles to use that reality to their advantage (in other words, learning "game"). The One They Call Mars (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're really over-emphasizing the various distinctions and sub-distinctions of the same movement here. MRAs are not mainly misguided. One could come to that conclusion by merely listening to their claims about themselves, but if one looks at the actual "movement" (such at it is), you will see a different picture. It's not just their fringe; even influential MRAs are pretty vile people, and the pathetic excuses at theory crafting they do are explicitly anti-feminist and anti-egalitarian, not just "for men's right". The whole movement is gender authoritarian and toxic. As for the redpillers, well, they're just the extra insane and vile end of that movement. But that doesn't mean the rest of it is any good. Octo8 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Raysenn has just been on Reddit a bit long. Talking about Atheism+ as if it's even still a thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly yes. I hang out in the most bitter corners of the Internet too much. Going on /a/ or /tv/ too much can embitter a the sweetest and purest of men.
 * Also, Atheism+ people still talk about Atheism+ as if it's still a thing. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 13:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See, that's the thing I'm not seeing happening. Its previous advocates (PZ, etc) hardly seem to mention it, if at all; mostly it's a catchphrase used by Thunderf00t fans for everything they despise - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which, if we're honest, is the most extent of what these movements and submovements do, anyway, so in that sense A+ is in fact a thing :p MRAs, too. Not much actual activism there, either, another thing setting them negatively apart from feminism. Octo8 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From my perspective (which is admittedly limited), it looks like Atheism+ gives sex-positive New Atheists who are disgruntled with sexism among other New Atheists a new place to go. As for their relevance, I remember they were recently pretty active in promoting Secular Woman's petition to get the SPLC to recognize TERF groups such as Gender Identity Watch as hate groups (they currently don't, and they once even cited Cathy Brennan as a source in an Intelligence Report piece on MRAs, but that's a can of worms I plan to open elsewhere on this site). Sure, it was an online petition, but at least it got a response from an SPLC representative (who said TERFs couldn't be listed as they don't meet the standards of being a "group," but again, that's for another time and place). Also, I've seen some relatively tame MRAs out there (some of whom are ex-feminists) who really are just misguided, but they tend to operate more independently and haven't really been indoctrinated into MRA "theory." The One They Call Mars (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Welp, so A+ is dead outside of Reddit's /r/ShitRedditSays and its related subreddits. Never cared much for the movement, nor I can claim to be particularly impressed that it's dead. The SPLC thing was nice, though.
 * About that last one, a good deal of the ex-feminists I've met in the Something Awful forums seem to be the ones who were turned away from the movement by Dworkin-worshipping, Tumblr-style radical feminists in the Retarded Forum for Assholes (Something Awful Forums' Laissez's Faire, or it was before being renamed [and shortly after, deleted] and having its regular posters banned unless they paid US$6). I can't really blame them, honestly. Its member were, well, retarded assholes. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That latter is something that precedes the Internet; I'm old enough to remember Dworkin and Brownmiller in their 1980s heyday, and they struck me then as not being on the same page of the countercultural liberation project that I had understood as being the point. They seemed to represent a backlash, like Nancy Reagan and the fallout from the death of Len Bias did, or Tipper Gore's PMRC censorship campaigns. This was when I started having second thoughts about feminism; that, and the fact that the sociobiologists seemed to be on to something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually onto something, or just telling a compelling story? Those aren't the same thing. There's a reason it euphemism-treadmilled to "evolutionary psychology" - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Evo Psych is such a shit field. A good part of it ain't really falsifiable or intellectually rigourous.
 * @Smerdis: So, in your vision, Dworkin and Brownmiller horseshoed back into the puritanical fundamentalists that feminists fighted against. Nah, that's a place reserved for Redstockings, who not only were sex-negative, but also disapproved of male homosexuality. Let that sink in for a minute.
 * However, Dworkin was kind of crazy, yes. She's the Freud of feminists; her theories contributed to the field, but was overrun by better theories as time went on, and look kind of crazy nowadays for us in the third wave. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 13:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can all at least agree that there are varying degrees of crazy in every broad social and political movement. Feminists, Men's Rights Advocates and Atheists all have their own problems. Things like, dismissing evolutionary psychology off hand and claiming it's unfalsifiable (when all you would need to do is show a strong and persistent number of psychological traits in humans that are not beneficial to reproduction and survival) and saying that we need to go back to men working and women staying at home. These are problems, but if you look closely enough you will see that moderate MRAs and Feminists have a pretty clear overlap. That overlap is equal rights and representation for all, and because of this the number of people calling themselves MRAs or Feminists and support that modern and reasonable ideal is growing. As MRAs gather traction they become less radical. In this same way, feminism has become more radical and less relavent (not irrelavent) and has lost traction, inculding Warren Farrell who was leader of a chapter of the NWO for 3 years and has written books both for feminism and for the MRM. Does the Neoreationary Movement have an overlap with the more radical MRAs? Yes, it does, and this should be mentioned, but it should be noted that this is not ALL MRAs, especially not the modern MRA movement which has grown a long LONG way away from these ideals. - Hobby (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the modern MRA movement which has grown a long LONG way away from these ideals - where the heck do they hide out. All the MRA sites that I find are the ranting and raving of the deranged. Please, seriously, some links to non radical MRA sites. Placeholder (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Good Men Project comes to mind, but I'm not sure they're "MRA" so much as "men's issues" (see my distinction in my other comment below as to why I don't think pro-feminist men's movements should call themselves "men's rights"). There was once a controversy over someone writing an article there trying to figure out what motivates date rape by including an account from a rapist that came across as too sympathetic to the rapist (earning the GMP a knee-jerk denunciation on Salon.com), and Hugo Schwyzer (a strung-out hypocrite who represents an embarrassment to male feminists and sex-positive feminists alike) sometimes writes for them, but most of the site's content is progressive and agreeable (and sometimes downright awesome). The One They Call Mars (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'd like you to remember that this is MRAs and how they link in with the Neoreactionary Movement, which believes we should not just send out people back 100 years, but also out system of government. Something that left-wing and liberal MRAs would be strongly against.
 * As for non-radical sites, you can start by reading the AVfMS Values and Mission page which, among other things, promotes True Equality, Compassion and Fairness Regarding Victims of Rape and False Rape Accusations and Freedom of Speech and Expression.http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/about/mission-and-values/ Next I'd try the Good Men Foundation, which even people on RW agree is actually trying to promote equality. http://goodmenproject.com/foundation/ Finally, check the Father's Rights Movement: http://www.fathersrights.com/what-is-the-fathers-rights-movement/ who want a new paradigm - "Look at it this way—mother, home and work; father, home and work. It’s an equal timeshare, payshare, liveshare, loveshare… and everything else."
 * Now, I will admit that I don't have time to go through every single page on these websites, although you must admit that the core principles of AVfMS is enough to at least show that they are not malicious. Also, as this is a student project it naturally attracts more liberal, left-wing, internet using advocates.
 * As I said before, as this movement is becoming more visable it's drawing in more neutrally grounded men and women. It's a long way off at the moment but it's getting there. - Hobby (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A Voice for Men? Hah. That is a misogynist hatesite, and Paul Elam is a twat. It's as I've said before on the other discussion: What MRAs proclaim are their principles, how they present themselves differs sharply both from how they act as people, and from the underlying ideology and 'theories' of their movement. The latter part is important; after all one can be an asshole and still be right. But it's not just the people in the movement, but also the very ideas and ideology which define the movement. As for the father's rights movement, they always appeared more pragmatical towards their (indeed very important) issue, rather than being ideologically grounded in any larger movement, though I admit this may be a bit of a No True Scotsman argument. Octo8 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we sure A Voice for Men and A Voice for Male Students are run by the same people based on anything other than the similarities in the names? The One They Call Mars (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They share similar writers but AVfMS is not run by Elam. It is ran by Jonathan Taylor who has written for AVfM. Same stupid antifeminist circlejerks too --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NOW (National Organization of Women), not NWO. I know it was a typo, but I had to look up Warren Farrell to realize what you meant. Be careful not to accidentally shoot your credibility in the foot with an NWO reference (-P). Granted, while I've seen people slip New World Order references into the most unrelated of conversations, I gave you the benefit of the doubt as this one was far too casual and did not make sense in context. As for Farrell himself, he's exactly what I meant when I was talking about sane MRAs who hadn't been immersed in the nasty propaganda the MRM is known for perpetrating today. Despite what looks like (from reading his Wikipedia page) hints of frame-flipping and mild denialism (he reminds me of Christina Hoff Sommers), he appears nevertheless relatively admirable. It's great to see people who think independently enough to critique issues in their own movements. All too often, however, I see the constructive critiques turn into diatribes, and the folks making the critiques end up resembling S.E. Cupp. As an aside, I prefer to use the term "men's issues" rather than "men's rights" when referring to people and movements advocating for men's issues that are allied with feminists. Not only does it set this activism apart from the reactionary misogynist movements calling themselves the MRM, but it's more accurate. "Men's rights" implies that men need to be liberated or are suffering violations of their rights, when in reality, men don't need much liberating, though they do face gender inequality on fronts that are often overlooked (the fact that misogynist MRAs bring up legit issues such as custody law hurts the cause by contaminating it with their poison). Another problem is that a number of well-intentioned pro-feminist campaigners for male issues make the mistake of downplaying women's issues by claiming they've been "fixed" or that they aren't really facing any problems anymore, when this is demonstrably untrue. Can't people wrap their heads around the fact that human rights activism is not a zero sum game, and that we can focus on both very real men's issues and very real women's issues simultaneously? The One They Call Mars (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

And the predictable derail about evolution and evopsych

 * The sexual conflict of interest is also one thing that dooms MRAs, and one reason why they get the reactions they get. Biology is always going to prioritize women and treat men as disposable, because from a biological perspective they are.  So when women voice a collective grievance, some attention gets paid; when men try to, they face a much stiffer headwind.  A mere abstract belief in an equal or unisex society will not earn men's grievances an audience.  It strikes me that there is plenty of vicious and poisonous anti-male feminist rhetoric that circulates with very little criticism; but men can't respond in kind.  And because evolution is true, this too is one of the inevitabilities; no law, no politics, and no movement can change this.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "It strikes me that there is plenty of vicious and poisonous anti-male feminist rhetoric that circulates with very little criticism; but men can't respond in kind." This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against me! - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)Since when are men significantly more disposable than women from an evolutionary/biological perspective? Do you mean the sort-of shorter life span? Do you mean the more combat-adapted bodies? And then you try to simply generalize that principle you just shakily drew from those factors on to modern social issues? Why? Nullahnung (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Men are "evolutionarily" more "disposable" because women, as birthgivers, are much more critical for population growth (and hence also for decimated populations to jump back to survivable numbers). Men can fertilize several women, after all. Of course, in modern society this is completely irrelevant. Industrial nations rarely reach population growth without immigration anyway, and if we should experience a societal collapse of a magnitude that humanity is near extinction then, eh, screw it all anyway. This is not a scenario we should realistically take into consideration. And really, what issues and what people are listened to in society are matters of society - of social structure, of social norms and fads and so on. Trying to explain this with psycho-evo woo is complete nonsense. Octo8 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That, of course, is the point; in contemporary societies questions about fertility and fertilization ought not to be driving any social policies. Just like our appetites ought to have adjusted to the fact that sugary foods aren't rare any more and that we shouldn't glut ourselves on sweets because this chance to do so won't come again for a long time.  Well, that doesn't work, and neither does expecting people not to defend the womenfolk while seeing men as expendable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Octo8. No it's run by a different guy. It's also student focussed which makes it pretty much automatically more left-wing and liberal. Evolutionary disposible, yes, and the genetics that effects out psychology on that issue is still inside us, hence we prioritize women. Therefore the claim that "Trying to explain this with psycho-evo woo is complete nonsense." such a statement holds no water and is quite frankly an insult to a major area of biological science, used to theorise the origins of morality and, more importantly for this conversation, male and female specific roles. This is nothing to do with fads, but is a recognisable characteristic that is common through all of human history and pre-history. Male hunters and female gatherers. Male warriors and female breeders. These are the facts that evolutionary psychology are built on.
 * @The One They Call Mars. Cheers for the catch ;). Also, I couldn't agree more about the whole Farrell thing. They characterise him as changing sides, then ignore him off handedly. I also agree that the use of the term "men's issues" is far more useful as it separates the two ideals and stops people from dismissing people because they happen to be in a group with the same name as a bigot.
 * @Smerdis of Tlön. I agree that such an issue is a hard one to approach. Certain areas such as "why are the standards for women to join the Firefighters or the Army lower (easier fitness test) than their male counterparts?". Is this equal? Is it more equal to have the standards the same or the standards suited to each sex?
 * @Nullahnung. I think he's referring to war, and the common argument against women on the frontlines or in submarines. Also, women and children first. Hobby (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is so scientifically rigorous about evo-psych that Smerdis and Hobby seem to be so sure about? Anybody acquainted with the literature care to cite some recognised scholarly work?
 * Also, AVfMS has links at the bottom to 'A Voice for Men', so they seem to be related (also has links to a bunch of other sites, but seemingly no link to the Good Men Foundation). Nullahnung (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Evolutionary Psychology is a theoretical field that attempts to explain the origin of specific genetic psychological traits using evolutionary biology. In the same way that evolutionary theory is used to explain the origin of the immune system, the origin or our psychological traits can never be absolutely known, but it can be theorised and supported with evidence. Here's one on the possible reason for autism being a positive characteristic: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110603122849.htm. So while things like this are not set in stone, they can give evidence based arguments for the natural selection of certain genetic predispositions. Hobby (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the key part, though, "things are not set in stone." There's no doubt that evolution has had an effect on our brains, and "evolutionary psychology" can be a valid science. There is an informal distinction drawn between "lowercase evo-psych" and "capital EP" or "narrow-sense EP." Most of what's touted as "evolutionary psychology" is the narrow-sense variety peddled by essentialists who believe things are set in stone.


 * What annoys me about Smerdis of Tlön's approach is that he takes reasonable premises about evolutionary currents and concludes that these must be absolutely immutable by societal conditioning. Now, there are indeed cases where people's inner psychological drives overcome environmental pressures (for example, transgender people still feel they are a member of a gender not matching the sex they were assigned at birth, despite all societal pressure to adhere to the identity matching their birth sex), but not all evolved psychological instincts are equally strong. I've also seen Smerdis refer to detractors as espousing "human exceptionalism," but this could only hold true if the arguer believed the ability to overcome certain instincts was unique to humans. (To me, it looked as though he was promoting a false dichotomy between human exceptionalism and unsuppressible instinct, but that's just how I interpreted it, and he's free to dispute if that's not what he meant.) If instinct were either unsuppressible (or at least so strong as not to be worth suppressing) in all creatures or unsuppressible only in people, then things such as police K-9 dogs could not exist.


 * To break away from the rhetoric about human exceptionalism, I'm gonna take a more in-depth look at dogs for a bit. I've seen some of the complex conditioning used to train police dogs, including responding to specific commands in European tongues, moving with the handler only when the handler leads with a certain foot, giving different silent gestures indicating the presence of meth vs. C4, ignoring every other member of its species and breed, and many other instances of "going against instinct." Before anyone says "But they're bred to do that!" or similar, keep in mind that untrained German Shepherds (the most common breed trained as military and police working dogs) are no less instinctive than other domesticated dogs, and the training makes a HUGE difference. A possible argument I'd anticipate in response to that is that the complex training and conditioning given to police dogs far exceeds the level analogous to what the average human receives growing up. This is true, but the level of training and conditioning given to the average family dog (a level possibly analogous to human societal conditioning, possibly below it) still causes it to act within behavioral constraints not adhered to by a feral member of its breed.


 * An interesting case where domestic dogs did revert to instinct was in New Orleans after Katrina, where some abandoned domestic dogs were seen hunting in packs in the streets. This might appear to validate SoT's assertions regarding immutable instinct, but it's imperative to note that this reversion to instinct was forced by extreme environmental austerity, including neglect/abandonment by the folks they'd relied upon, lack of other human attention, and squalid chaotic conditions on the ground. Likewise, extreme environmental pressure can screw up the normal behavior humans have grown to engage in. Certain black cults (actual cults, real-life versions of ritual abuse panics) such as the Order of Nine Angles, Shugara Syndicate, and Tempel ov Blood (yes that's how they spell it, yes it's stupid) supposedly have an initiation process that involves the prospective initiate surviving alone in a forest with no human contact for months at a time (if true, this would obviously draw more recruits from survivalist nuts than average urbanites). While this does require survival skills and would make for a hardier person, the primary purpose is not to teach survival or resilience, but rather to "un-civilize" the person in a vaguely similar fashion to the Katrina dogs, presumably to reduce empathy make them more receptive to a doctrine that prescribes engaging in violence against innocent people. (Again, the people claiming to run these outfits could well be full of it, but the theory is still there). My point is that, under normal circumstances, both humans and domesticated dogs tend to adhere to whatever behavioral norms and constraints they are taught, just at different levels of mental functioning, complexity of reasoning, etc.


 * Concerning the analogy between dog training and societal conditioning, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to omit the fact that there do appear to be genetically-influenced differences between breeds of dogs with regard to how smart or trainable they are (Border Collies have been found to be the smartest and most trainable, poodles second, German Shepherds third, and Afghan Hounds last). What Smerdis has failed to prove, I believe, is that humans are more analogous to the Afghan Hounds than to the Border Collies, poodles, and German Shepherds. Given the observable successful results in recent history of attempts by us humans to "civilize" ourselves, I'm leaning toward the Border Collies, poodles, and German Shepherds. The One They Call Mars (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FFS please add paragraph breaks to the above rambling wall of text - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. The One They Call Mars (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

What I would say instead is that there's enough variation among humans that, to keep the canine analogy, some are more like the Afghans and others are like the Border Collies. Yes, humans can be conditioned, much like dogs can. Some, perhaps most, can be trained to follow some social expectations consistently; some more consistently than others. The one difference between humans and dogs that I would draw is that the happiness of humans is a bit more of a priority for me than the happiness of dogs. I still suspect the K9 dogs would be happier chasing rabbits and butterflies, but then they'd be less useful for us, and we own them. Subjecting humans to the sort of discipline and isolation to which we subject highly trained dogs is already morally hard to justify. No one ought to own humans, or have the power to command them to act against their natures in such a fashion. The main take home point I want people to take from evolutionary psychology is that there is indeed an inherited human nature, one that expresses itself in such universal but difficult features of human society as a sexual division of labor and othering. To the extent that you find these inherited human behaviors morally or politically unacceptable, you need to know what you're facing, and temper your expectations appropriately; that is all I ask of anyone. My quarrel is not so much with those who would try to change them, but with those who claim that all of these things are products of socialization and that altering them is a mere matter of law or propaganda. And more importantly, it's about saving live people from the wrath of these dreamers when their plans for behavior modification fail. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And what I actually think about this, I wrote in my essay on the subject:
 * I believe, very strongly, that we need to face squarely all of the political, ethical, and social consequences of the fact that human beings are unremarkably descended from primates. One of several possible primate lifestyles is our natural one: we are therefore gregarious, semi-social creatures with support networks and a pecking order, and a sexual division of labor. These social and political aspects of human life have not changed significantly from the Pleistocene to the present. Culture is not some kind of magic curtain that removes us from all this. It, too, exists in the service of our selfish genes' agendas.
 * Our genes' agenda causes a number of problems. If we hope to rise above what nature made us, we need to understand what's there, and what we are constantly and unwittingly being made to do. Only through understanding what our subconscious drives and desires programmed by our genes are urging us to do, can we hope to recognize and possibly countermand them. Understanding them means understanding your neighbors better as well.

I'm not arguing that our genetic impulses are always irresistable. I am saying that if your plans involve telling people to act against their natural druthers, you should know what you're up against going in. You should temper your expectations of compliance accordingly, and count the cost of enforcement. You should, of course, think about whether the world really will be a happier place as a result. As Dawkins put it, "Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We just don't have a level of training high enough to compare us to canines. Some people are trained from birth to think and act a certain way, but the vast majority of humans aren't. Think about this very very simple analogy. Reflexes are a natural and primitive impulse that allows us to avoid danger. This impulse can be overwritten with enough practice. Your children will still have reflexes. You can train this out of them as well because nurture can overwrite nature, but not everyone goes to the effort of teaching themselves not to flinch. In fact the vast majority of humans flinch. So as a population as a whole, even if some people in that population seek to actively overwrite something about themselves, the population as a whole will more than likely remain much the same. Now I saw your claim that our primitive genes would make us less empathetic towards innocence. This is a bit off. It's more that we are not empathetic to those that we know nothing about, or cannot relate to. These days we have the news to convey worldwide news, but even now many people don't really care about a mass shooting in the middle of China. They just think "well, what did you expect from China, puh". These same attitudes are apparent during times of war. It's just how a nation is framed in our eyes. Anyway, I think you would be hard pressed to show that there has been sufficient human training to overcome primitive female protection, male protector psychology, as even today we don't let women on the front lines or in submarines. - Hobby (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thus demonstrating the IDF isn't human. Well done! FFS, read what you're writing - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

British scientists have uncovered why little girls like pink toys. “Women are hardwired to like pink,” says Professor Gene Hunt of the University of Metro, “because their cavewoman foremothers spent their days gathering red leaves and berries amongst the trees.” Later, women needed to notice red-faced babies and blushing boyfriends. Men are attracted to blue because of the colour of the sky as seen when hunting.

Women are also predisposed to backstab one another in the workplace and cry in the boardroom, just like the social structures in the cave population as extrapolated from these two bone needles. Being too successful will increase women’s testosterone, giving them hairy nipples and male-pattern baldness. Females joining the hunt may also explain the end of the Neanderthals.

IQ test studies show that women have lower IQs on average than men, undoubtedly from lesser need for environmental variation while taking care of the cave. Tests on little boys prove that testosterone correlates with a sense of humour, which is why women just can’t take a joke. Housework has been shown to cut the risk of several fatal diseases, and dressing up nicely around the house is psychologically healthy as it uses the Homo erectus clan maintenance abilities of the female of the tribe.

Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible, as proven by lions, whereas women are naturally predisposed to stay loyal to their man and their spawn. Women who sleep around are at increased risk of parasites and death, as proven by cheetahs, who are a pack of catty sluts.

In a final crowning achievement, the team has shown that daily fellatio greatly reduces the incidence of breast cancer. Furthermore, regular sexual intercourse is essential to feminine health, but may be injurious if prolonged for more than two minutes or conducted while the man is sober.

“In conclusion,” says Professor Hunt, “all of this is top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on. Now get your knickers back on and make me a cuppa.” - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * XD Nullahnung (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Thus demonstrating the IDF isn't human." What the fuck are you talking about?
 * The IDF puts women on the frontlines, thus trivially disproving your claim as to this being a human universal. - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Women currently make up 3% of the IDF's combat soldiers." "In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men."" These two comments alone are enough to show that women on the front lines (even in a country like Israel) is only 3% at most, and the right of women to fight has only existed since 2000. Women can also "be exempted from military service for reasons of religious conscience, marriage, pregnancy or motherhood." Also, "Israel is the only nation to conscript women and assign some of them to infantry combatant service which places them directly in the line of enemy fire." "Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two." So even if we take all of this, we still find that women on the front lines is rare in Israel and non-existant in the rest of the world. Women can avoid service by saying that they don't agree, having a baby or marrying, and even then they serve a year less than men. Finally, this is after YEARS of arguing that women should be allowed to fight, showing that going against our natural predispositions takes years and years of campaigning. So as I said, this IS universal, as shown in the IDF history as only allowing women on the front lines in 2000, and even then certain concessions are still held. Hobby (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As for all of your claims, I would like you to start by linking me to all the scientific papers then I would like you to research long enough to see if these papers have been discredited. So far all you have done is show how much of a jackass you are.
 * Oh, btw, you are actually on to something with "Men are naturally predisposed to sleep with as many women as possible" as this would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage, as evolution has a main goal of reproduction. It would explain why men are aroused so easily and why they have higher levels of testosterone. This doesn't mean that it's acceptable for men to do this but this may also explain why many people see men sleeping around as not such a big deal, or even a positive attribute. You however lost me at parasites and death. I would put women's sexual habits down to pregnancy and a need to have an attachment to the child and the father, rather than broadly claiming it's to do with parasites. These are however just possibilities and should not be taken as "top-notch science that you can absolutely rely on".
 * I think your main problem is you didn't read the whole text where I stated earlier "Evolutionary Psychology is a theoretical field that attempts to explain the origin of specific genetic psychological traits using evolutionary biology. In the same way that evolutionary theory is used to explain the origin of the immune system, the origin or our psychological traits can never be absolutely known, but it can be theorised and supported with evidence". Although you've never been one to actually read an argument have you Dave? - Hobby (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if you couldn't tell that was humour, you are too stupid to post to RationalWiki. You did read the last two paras? - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Humour is generally...well...humourous. Forgive me for not being able to tell the difference between a idiot and satire from an idiot. Hobby (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thunderf00t fans really are hard of reading - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or you could put put people's sexual or other habits down to their individual preferences. How about that? Look, I'm not saying evolution had no influence on psychology; saying that would be giving in to mythical body mind dualism: Psychology is just another aspect of the body in the end. As such, I'm also willing to admit that there probably indeed are, on average, statistical (but not total, absolute) differences in the behaviour of men and women. Now, that being said, evolutionary psychology is not the holy grail to explain all human behaviour. That is where it becomes woo: When people try to trace back every bit of human behaviour to it. It's a classical variant of woo, really: Presenting a scientific theory as the solution for everything (see supposed panacea based on electricity, radiation or whatever else had just recently been discovered in history). And really, trying to explain something as detailed and minitious as the supposed difficulties of MRAs to get heard with evolutionary psychology, yeah, that's pretty much stepping into woo territory. That's what I meant above.
 * But it goes beyond that: A second problem with evolutionary psychology is in fact the lack of empirical evidence. Many considerations about it go "You know, it would make evolutionary sense if this or that were true" or "Such behaviours would be evolutionarily beneficial". But just because those considerations make sense does not mean they are actually true! In order to actually empirically validate many of the claims raised by Evolutionary Psychology, you would have to go to genetics, or at least neurology for proof. If the claimed inherent nature of the sexes exist, then it would have to be found in the genes or in the brain structure. Again, I don't deny that there probably are significant statistical differences that go beyond just nurture, but I do think that most of the more concrete claims made by Evolutionary Psychology cannot be scientifically backed up. Octo8 (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Evolution doesn't deal with personal anything though. It deals with populations as a whole. As you said it's a matter of on average, statistically, men are more likely to..., women are more likely to... This is exactly what evolutionary psychology is for. I also agree that more research needs to be done in the field. As it stands we have based hominid habits gathered from fossil evidence and artistic depictions (cave paintings). I would fully support a look into the genetic links between certain characteristics in men and women and how they relate genetically, although this is not by any means an easy task. In fact it would be almost impossible and would probably take at least 20 years of research to even get a good grounding. I also don't agree with it explaining everything, but very basic and evolutionary necessities, such as male attitudes and actions concerning sex and violence, can have theoretical explanations put forward that accurately explain one of many possibilities from an evolutionary perspective. As I sad, it's a theoretical field. It doesn't say "this is the way it is because evolution". It's currently only good for hypothesising about the way genetics carried from hominids could be effecting modern humans. This does not in any way justify calling it mad or passing it off without consideration. People just need to understand that a group or news source exagerating a science story does not mean that the original story was unreasonable, unscientific or definitive. - Hobby (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to the neoreactionary movement?
Please?--ZooGuard (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What about it ol' buddy ol' pal? Hobby (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This section was about links between the neoreactionary movement and the MRM. That discussion had run its course and burned out by the point where you split the EP threadjack. In fact, the last direct reference to neoreactionary/MRA links was SoT's comment on March 22 (or 22 March to you Brits) talking about how there is some overlap in neoreactionary and red pill thought, and that a movement such as neoreaction will have several paths leading to it, with MRA/PUA woo being among them. After that, there wasn't much left to talk about concerning the question of whether the two movements were truly related in spite of Anissimov's denunciation of the manosphere. Hence, we got the derailment about Atheism+, Dworkin, evo-psych, German Shepherds, and "sexual division of labor" or somesuch. The original discussion is largely a dead horse. The One They Call Mars (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In fairless I did mention it on the 24th, but whatever. I think we can all agree that there is some overlap among the movements, but until non-radical MRAs (who I believe should now be refered to Men's Issues Advocates, thank you The One They Call Mars) separate themselves from the more radical and hateful side of the MRM, we can't put broad and sweeping statements that claim that the entire MRM has an overlap with a large part of the Neoreactionary Movement. In this same way we cannot say that all feminists have the goal of equality as many radical feminists are anti-transgender and attempt to unscientifically suppress them. We can however say that this is just a portion of the movement, and therefore not representative of the whole, while saying that most feminists strive for equality. Really this should be a talk on how many MRAs are radicals that subscribe to this line of reasoning, how many are radical but would still no accept this movement and how many are not radicals at all. - Hobby (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness
I'm finally reading A Confederacy Of Dunces. My God. Ignatius stepped out of the cathedrals of text on More Right into fifty years ago. Perfect. Perfect. A bit argumentum ad cellarium, but then a logical fallacy is not necessarily a Bayesian one. YOU MUST ALL READ THIS BOOK. - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Tol'ja. Really is one of the funniest books of the twentieth century. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Already done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I first read about in Anthony Burgess' Homage to Qwert Yuiop, his brilliant collection of book reviews with the worst title ever. That was about 25 years ago. If only I'd picked up the clue back then ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I just started reading A Confederacy of Dunces as well -it's been popping up everywhere I look, though that's obviously just coincidence. The novel is pretty amusing -I haven't laughed out loud yet, but I'm enjoying it. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I finished the novel a few weeks ago. It was funny, and yeah, Ignatius is a full-blown Neoreactionary... and Myrna wouldn't be out of place on Tumblr. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we should write an actual article
Today was brought to you by the number 37,941 - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the worst episode of Sesame Street I think I've ever seen. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Brought to my attention by Justine Tunney, who has a previous history of supporting neoreaction and particularly Moldbug's stuff. Twitter thread. I suspect logorrhea-fatigue - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see Justine Tunney's now deleted all those tweets, but you should be able to get the gist from the replies - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoins?
Do neoreactionaries have an overarching opinion on bitcoins/cryptocurrencies? 13:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that I've seen, though the LW associated ones seem to be familiar with them - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Humour detected
- David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Endorsed by Anissimov
At least this is how I read this.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Anissimov versus Tunney
OK, I'm not gonna just place a cite tag. I'll research a bit.

CONCLUSION: There are many reasons for horror and laughter at the things Justine Tunney says and does ... but being a transwoman isn't one of them, this should be fucking obvious to anyone claiming to be a decent human, and Anissimov fails even more than I'd already thought. These people are just fucking awful. Anissimov pontificates without saying what he's talking about. Now he says what he's talking about. Other neos don't buy it. (Mreeoooww.) Fucking awful comments here. Nyan Sandwich, not quite so awful. more: This stuff is just terrible and I don't even want to read it enough to substantiate the section. But we still need to. Ew. - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Folded in. AUGH MY EYES - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Anime fandom will out
Weaseloid removed the tangential bit on neoreactionaries as anime villains. I concur it was a bit of a stretch. OTOH, in other regards, we have stuff like this tweet (for this question) as screenshotted by this tweet and originally brought to my attention by this tweet, which made my day. Anime is pretty clearly in there, and all it needs is some examples. I note this post which starts "When I first got started with my reactionary writings, I thought I would be the only anime fan in these circles. Boy was I ever wrong." - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed something similar as well with obnoxious racists and social darwinists on Youtube comments but remember the association fallacy, alot of mass shooters brush their teeth but that doesn't mean that's what caused them to go nuts. Alot of people enjoy anime. The only reason I can think of for this is overlapping demographs (teenagers who spend too much time on the internet), unless there's a more direct connection between the two. ClothCoat (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim is that neoreactionaries are disproportionately into anime. The cause is a good question. Obviously not just anime. But something about the cultural environment, and particular tropes. I think I can pretty clearly state that the "I simulate your simulation of me" in Roko's basilisk is straight out of Death Note and similar manga/anime, for example - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

An interesting takedown
I just found this critique of the neoreactionary movement by a self-identified anarcho-monarchist on NSG. I thought he would have been on board with Neoreaction, but it turns out he's not a fan. He makes some curious observations, some of which might be worth integrating into the article. The One They Call Mars (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One of his conclusions is not terribly different from my own. Even if a non-racist version of this could be constructed (fairly trivial, actually), while the "global free market" exists it isn't possible.  Nor will they be able to keep the global market's IT infrastructure while Balkanizing the globe.  He also arrives at the conclusion that it's an essentially literary fantasy; the Byronism that seems to be at its heart is its one attractive feature. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF is an anarcho-monarchist? How does that even make sense? *head asplodes* Surely a parody of how libertarians don't realise that the right to emigrate is similar to the right to change jobs, not a real political position.--Greenrd (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The logic in Distruzio seems to be that the monarch is essentially powerless... or something... We're into Poe territory here (I can't figure out if it's serious alternative scenario thinking or simply for fun). Here's another take on anarcho-monarchism. I'll have to agree that this chimaera makes little sense to me (particularly in the light of the origins and history of anarchism). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Phalangists, huh?
It's good to know that old traditions never die out completely.--Monarchofascist (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nyan is aware, doesn't care - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It's semniotic, apparently. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A marvellous summary by Nostalgebraist
Ex-LWer (well, slightly) Nostalgebraist sums up the appeal of NRx as the ultimate defiant subcultural embrace of defectiveness:

I'd have quoted it in the article, but, y'know, Toole for every pull-quote is way more artistically perfect.

Need to ask him about redigesting his post on the problem with Moldbug (and how the Anti-Neoreactionary FAQ out-Moldbugs Moldbug) too - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Know Well
I'm an alleged 'neo-reactionary', based on an insult given to me in a college class. Why can't we say the obvious, that social justice warriors are the reason for the "Growth" of this movement? It sounds attractive already; from a philosophical standpoint. All of the favored philosophers by the social justice warriors are continental philosophers. Are they bitter about something?

Does anyone else see what I'm doing or is it just me? It's is a parody of intellectual dishonesty. 06:07, 7 May 2015‎
 * Because it's BS, irrelevant, or both? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Most Continental Philosophy departments in the US, the English speaking world, the nordic countries, and Germany are done in the "analytic" style. The USA has some continental philosophy departments. The overwhelming majority do not. I really don't think that's why people like continental philosophers, but you really just proved my point there. I have no reason to think they're bitter about anything. I'll let this stay here. ActualReactionary (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Analytical Philosophers didn't oppress them in the 1960s, hint hint ActualReactionary (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up "A Critique of Pure Tolerance" and "Herbert Marcuse" on another website. Only if you're unfamiliar with these topics. ActualReactionary (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you could find other things that were different in the 1960s than they are today - so what? What exactly is the point you're trying to make here? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was called this in a 200 Level Philosophy class. He was really really pissed and you have no reason to doubt that fact. He said this after I pointed all of this out. It is a fact. I don't care for Michel Foucault, but he was a historian of ideas, and a continental philosopher. The history of Ideas is legitimate for a reason. ActualReactionary (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point being? ScepticWombat (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, RationalWiki edits their capchats to make them look like death threats, and why would anyone know I'm gay if not for Facebook? I actually am. Saw it on Bill Maher's news feed WellWellWell (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This tends to shut people up when Emma Silcowicz is brought up again. Buzzfeed censors their comments, too. Watch out for the thought police! WellWellWell (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The lack of responses clearly shows that there's a strong amount of intellectual dishonesty going on here. You all were so fast before. The last two times. Third time's the charm?

For anyone looking on here: This was called "trolling" until I pointed all of these facts out. Why does it have to come to this? I don't care if people have different opinions from me but it doesn't change logic. Why would I retract for a reason like this? I honestly thought my computer was being hacked or something. (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC))

Someone didn't look through Bill Maher's facebook news feed because I'm there ;). There's people who were here who know what I'm talking about. Let's not kid ourselves. WellWellWell (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And they're getting rid of all of their talk on here. What a shocker. They were singing the praises before. Why not now? I don't get it. I really don't. Can someone explain? Or can this go under my name on here as original research? Somehow you people already KNEW My name so why not just use "ActualReactionary"? It would be a given, considering this article's obvious slant. WellWellWell (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"WellWellWell" works just as well in by book by the way. WellWellWell (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of the random passers-by: It was labeled "trolling" because the author admitted it was and tried to remove it.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WellWellWell, your ramblings are all over the place, but I'll do the polite thing and attempt to respond:
 * I didn't respond quickly to you, because I'm not at my keyboard 24/7, my earlier quick responses were simply because I happened to spot the comment in the recent changes feed. Why would you think otherwise?
 * As for the capchas, I really doubt you're right. It would be both complex, pointless and perhaps even of dubious legality. The allegation simply makes you sound like a conspiracy nut - sorry to say.
 * My lack of response is not consent, as already mentioned.
 * Bill Maher? WTF? What has he got to do with anything?
 * So, what are the actual points here? Apart from some random personal griping, I really can't find anything relevant to improving the article in your meandering rants. If actually do have suggestions for changes to the article, I recommend you make a bullet pointed/numbered list, rather than this stream of consciousness spray & pray. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have to wait a bit for an answer. DG whacked them with a three-day block.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked WWW to check the response, but encourage a reblock if DG's suspicion of a cut/paste bot is correct. Such a bot would explain the completely disjointed posts so far. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I would if you didn't permaban my.Ip. Now please respond to my posts. Stop calling my ideas trolling. 166.137.252.111 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no one is required to respond to your posts.
 * Your "ideas" look like trolling to me.
 * Either make substantial edits or fuck off. --Castaigne (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Proof. Unblock me.http://i.imgur.com/7b7iTnm.png unblock that IP. Thanks.
 * 1) Sign your posts.
 * 2) Indent correctly.
 * 3) Couldn't unblock you. I'm not a Sysop and so do not have unblocking privileges. Sorry. --Castaigne (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was never being sarcastic 166.137.252.114 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unblock that ip. 166.137.252.114 (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 19:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not respond to my posts instead of ad homium rumors? Or critiquing my "stream of conciusness" writing? You people don't care about science. So what if Correlation isn't causation? The history of Ideas is legit. And yes for the record I'm actually gay so why does it matter? Does anyone else see what I'm doing? This wasn't trolling so leave it here. Censorship isn't rational 166.137.252.114 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls? Unblock my ip and give me a real response. What are you people so afraid of? When you're right you shouldn't have to censor people 166.137.252.114 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear you are unblocked. Stop trolling, please. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, what are those points actually? So far I can make neither head nor tail of the rather random accusations and gripes that seem to have been tossed in willy nilly. Repeat: Make a list of your points and we might be able to respond. Haven't seen much beyond Even the block-bitching to suggest this isn't indicates a cut 'n paste bot. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a bot. Why can't I see the this on my computer but not my phone? Oh yeah I'm blocked. Once again I haven't been sarcastic. Censorship isn't rational 166.137.252.114 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies! There are in fact people who post like this naturally, and you appear to be one - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Anissimov's latest series of posts...
... probably ought to be featured more prominently, and I may add more about it. It's at least trying, in their way, to put forth a mission statement. It contains many interesting features: the repeated resort to the trope, if you're really smart you'll agree 110%, and its curious belief that advocating the abolition of democracy is somehow illegal (when it seems to me that democracy has been pretty much coopted into irrelevance with the conniving of the law.) Hell, we're rapidly approaching his ideal of a proprietary government, but the wrong people are in charge, which means it's never really been tried. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mmm. Other nrx are linking them a lot. May turn out to be worth attention. OTOH, take care with what's nrx in general and what's just Anissimov's little ways - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * what the
 * (It's fairly important, in considering this stuff, that NRx is a really pretty tiny and tight-knit internet subculture. It's like reading a newsgroup on a subject you don't actually care about to the point where you are familiar with the players. Analysing it like it's a product rather than a folk culture risks missing the point.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, everyone else at MoreRight has dumped Anissimov - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh good Lord. I just went down the rabbit hole. The NRx subculture has been having a GODDAMN HILARIOUS meltdown in the past couple of months. Expulsions, schisms, shitposts. They have successfully recreated student communism, except without anyone even getting laid. Hestia Society: Official Statement on the Leadership of NRx; Future Primaeval, a schism from MoreRight; "there’s an extremely intriguing experiment in authority taking place within the shadowy halls of NRx right now"; Weev vs Anissimov.
 * So um yeah. There's a lot more to NRx than Anissimov. To what degree it's worth researching is a separate question - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I read through those links, Seems entirely ED grade material; probably some note should be taken of some of it, but I'm at a loss to say what. I'm thinking along the lines of 'it's actually an easy and attractive strategy, if you travel in hard right-wing or pseudolibertarian circles, to try to pose and market yourself as a more intelligent alternative.  But, given human nature, any movement founded on such a premise has sown the seeds of its own destruction.' - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Literally ED-quality - these are actual ED and /pol/ people. (And Weev is odious enough to be a category of his own.) The Hestia Society is at the (pseudo-)intellectual end of NRx. Oh, Anarchopapist (Bryce Laliberte) has also dropped out/been hounded out of NRx after a blog post of his from 2010 mentioning his sexuality was quoted by another neoreactionary in 2015 and the homophobic little shits went "OH MY GOD FAGGOT". (Suggesting all these novel-length blog posts are write-only.) It really is student communism in action - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I (the pseudonymous Ted Colt) am not a so-called neoreactionary even if I empathize with many such arguments. Also, please correct the link to my post regarding so-called entryism into so-called neoreaction: the post does not describe so-called entryism or accuse anybody of entryism but is a response to such accusations. Like ya'll, I think the entire kerfuffle within so-called neoreaction is silly student communist style stuff, and said so in the post you reference. Please accurately represent my years of crappy writing. Yes, I called my writing "crappy." - Tteclod (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Ted Colt


 * I've now described it as "an observer on the accusations of entryism flying about in neoreaction". I linked that post because it seemed a relatively coherent description of some events and concerns within the subculture (meaning most of what else I found was /pol/ and /aristoi/ posts), though of course there was Free Northerner hilariously worrying that people who are assholes but have actual social skills might steal his dank PUA tips. I shall look for sources that are more primary - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose there is something useful to be written about the infighting. Anissimov/Tunney would best go under there (it's a minor kerfuffle really). The question is what. It's teenage political drama from people who are definitely old enough to know better - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Cheers to Ikanreed for giving a place to note this. I've compressed Anissimov vs Tunney into a footnote on schisms and purges, which is about what it deserves - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Is the opposite of the neo reactionary
... the archaeo-modernist?

The moving finger write, and having writ Moves on. nor all thy Neoreactionary piety nor reactionary wit...' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that Jefferson or Locke would hate the fuck out of their views, that's probably not too far off. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Other possibilities might include retro-modernist.

For more quatrains see. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thiel and Friedman aren't antecedents
They're contemporaries (and in Friedman's case, part of the same social circles). Thiel is a famous proponent of very NRx ideas, so likely rates a mention; I'm not convinced Friedman does. Any disagreement? - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, Thiel is simply too contemporary to be called an antecedent, and judging from the Friedman stuff linked to, it's more that he includes NRx stuff in his eclectic mishmash of Galt'ish libertarianism geared towards seasteading. Though Friedman seems to share the NRx dim view of democracy, he mainly uses NRx-style "voters are stupid"-scenarios to explain away why the brilliant ideas of libertarianism haven't triumphed at the polls (citing Hoppe, a source of current NRx inspiration on the topic, along the way). By contrast with Friedman's use of the supposed flaws in popular democracy (having the wrong people) to push for a "tabula rasa" (his words) which he equates with seasteading, actual NRx'ers want to replace the government in the actual countries in which they live with some idealised autocracy that they think existed in their misty-eyed view of the past. Friedman doesn't seem to be advocating any such ideas (at least in the linked material) and doesn't seem to envision an NRx-style government for his sea utopias which seem to are envisioned as becoming libertarian wonderlands simply by having (only?) libertarians inhabit them. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cut Friedman (there's probably a place for it somewhere in RW, though it'd be work to make it fit seasteading, streamlined Thiel a bit - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/40hmag/neckbeard_term_of_the_day_neoreactionaries/ 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Channer Connection
I'm curious if anyone knows if/how the neoreactionary ideals found on the chan community derived from the various communties in the bulk of the article?

I've had a masochistic fascination with /pol/ for years and this article correctly identifies some common positions espoused there. However, I've never seen anyone specifically link out to or ever discuss the authors here. I had known of LessWrong and Over coming bias for about as long as /pol/, but never delved far enough into their cesspool to uncover their political writings, so I wasn't even aware of the similarities until reading this.

Quick aside, it's been established The Daily Stormer regularly astro-turfs /pol/ to push their views further toward TDS, as well as stormfront doing this years back.

Tl;dr what route does the information trickle from the prime neoreactionary community to the chan community? With the (possibly mistaken) observation that there do not seem to be a lot of cross-posters in these communities. I would suggest channers are at least one source removed if not more from the prime community.

104.194.105.115 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the neonazis adopted some of the NRx jargon; and the two form a continuum of views, because the main difference is the neonazi don't bother pretending not to be 14/88 24/7 - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

New quotes
Yea, Toole is nice. But we've got sections sans quotes -- the horror! There's already some good quotes available from Talk:Neoreactionary_movement/Archive1, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?tag=dark-enlightenment, http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=312625

And a personal favorite: https://www.reddit.com/r/BestOfOutrageCulture/comments/4dhr0w/trump_isnt_like_hitler_and_these_sjw_harpies_in/d1r3e80

22:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Does every article section really need a quote? I think some articles have too many. --Ymir (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the quotes unless you're saying "I think reading is hard" - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's book is kickstarting
I edited it and have had months of lulz from it. Perhaps you will too - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what David means to say is "if you want to see where the next wave of footnotes in this article are going to come from..." 73.143.182.99 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And on Roko's basilisk, where I'm desperately waiting for the final release of the book so I can quote him ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Angry birds alt right
http://fusion.net/story/261690/alt-right-angry-birds-movie-theory-8chan-4chan/ 173.59.248.3 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This suggests more to me that alt-right could do with being broken out as a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt-Right vs Neoreactionary
Is it just me, or are the alt-right and neoreactionaries two different (albeit overlapping) concepts? I'm not an expert on these things but stuff like The Red Pill or R/The_Donald don't really seem to be the type to invoke feudalism and traditional Catholicism while Menicus Moldbug and his ilk don't really seem like the "4chan: the political movement" atmosphere of the alt-right. MidnightBlue766 (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Different but closely related. Need to cover the wider Dark Enlightenment (the assorted right-wing shitheads in that chart) in general - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised to find out they're literally mostly the same people. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they seem to share the ideological closeness that, say, fascists and nazis share (add or take). Meaning: they're certainly not that different from each other, but they are different enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The alt-right just seem to be younger, less-educated neoreacts. Neoreacts are more willing to take their far-right conservatism to its logical conclusions and consider real-world implementation.  The alt-right seem to be more content with just being anti-altruism dickholes content in wallowing in their misanthropy  and antagonizing others for "teh lulz".  Their primary driving force is maintaining the white, patriarchal status-quo, but without so much of the economic theorizing.  Alt-righters who never grow out of it will probably progress into neo-reacts.  That being said, i think the Nazi:Fascist analogy is appropriate too.  Petey Plane (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've split off alt-right as a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Frankfurt School & The Neoreactionary Movement
The text I edited out seemed oddly reasoned. It for one, simply stated "right-wing" politics in its dotage. That is to say right wing politics are in a dying state which is what dotage implies. Plus, the description of such dotage being seen in all of right wing politics, is a fairly general statement. It puts a lot of weight on members of right wing ideology who may not fall to the irrationality of the Neoreactionary movement and/or may reflect a sort of "energy" that refutes the "dotage". I do think the point of Neoreactionaries reflecting charlatanry was true and consistent with the rest of the article, so I merely edited "right wing" to be "extreme right wing", as well as the phrasing of the description that followed the colon.

The even larger edit was that of tying the Neoreactionary movement to the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was in itself an academic movement formulated at prestigious academic places. It is an ideological movement that set a lot of standards in social sciences and the humanities. Some of the writers are up there in the most cited social science authors in history. The Neoreactionary movement, on the other hand exists mainly on web pages and out of the mouths of incredible commentators/websites. Well it is true both ideologies are fairly deep into their sides of the political spectrum, and both tend to show verbose, they have little else in common. The acclaim and credibility of the Frankfurt School sets it up to be respectable movement in history, agree with it or not. Plus, the Frankfurt School did not represent the banner of a political movement. It was a school of thought formed by academic intellectuals who aimed for criticism of society, which did not exist to push a certain political policy, so the comment about it being to outlandish to vote for is odd, as it did not represent something nor did it push for something to vote for. It seems whoever edited this piece originally, had some gripe with right wing politics in general, as well as the Frankfurt School, as the tying together of the two movements is done by shoehorning and an "apples to oranges" reasoning. If you have any comments to make about my edit (positive, negative, or neutral), please feel free to engage in discussion with me and others below. I'll be sure to check the comments (by tomorrow at least).

PagesUponPages (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2016


 * Please sign your username using four tildes like this, ~, on a talk page. Thank you! Nerd (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

While I really can't follow the arguments made above, the basic edit is correct: there's no legitimate connection between Neoreaction and Frankfurt. The original prose was perhaps too high-minded for its own good. As for "dotage," well, at least in the US, it could certainly be argued that the conservative coalition that has led the American right for the last 50 years or so is falling apart. Jagulard (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the Frankfurt School and the neoreactionary movement resemble each other in interesting particulars. Obscurantist prose is the most obvious.  This obscurantism struck me as a confession of an inner weakness.  At least as practised in the USA, the sorts of academic politics informed by the Frankfurt School do indeed seem like they represent leftism in its dotage.  There is a flight from the center, a desire to assume ever more 'radical' poses, all expressed in 'critical theory' because this sort of extremism has more or less abandoned any attempt to do actual politics -- persuading people to adopt a political agenda, or anything else that would actually make a difference in people's lives.  It's the performance of paper-radical leftism for the benefit of a tiny audience.  My impression on reading especially Moldbug struck me as if I were looking at a similar phenomenon.  I may have been wrong about that.  In any case, I think that at minimum the comparison to Adorno and Horkheimer should stay. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But is obscurantist prose enough to compare one of the 20th century's most important philosophical schools to a contemporary movement that exists solely in obscure internet websites and forums, with little academic credibility? It does not seem reasonable to think Frankfurt represents left wing politics dying out. Just look at many millennials. Many of them are center-left at least. There is a resurgence in left wing politics today, like we have not seen in quite a while. Plus, for your comment on the Fossil record summary that at least some citation to Adorno and Horkheimer, what exactly do you mean by that. Nevertheless, thanks for the response, hope you respond below and ocntinue this discussion. - PagesUponPages (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)PagesUponPages


 * I'm seeing a point to PagesUponPages' concerns, though - the comparison is tenuous. Also, even if there is a comparison, the Frankfurt School clearly succeeded and Moldbug is utterly inept. I've seen neoreactionaries try to write in postmodernism (when they were responding to Phil Sandifer) and end up writing like Moldbug, it's ... amazing. The comparison does the neoreactionaries way, way too much credit - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad you see my point. Especially the person referred to, Moldbug, is a good example as to why comparing Neoreactionaries to the Frankfurt School is a bit odd. It seems like a stretch to compare a movement with thinkers like him, to a movement (agree with it or not) that produced incredibly important philosophical works in the 20th century. And it is true, I agree, with even those who agreed with the initial edit, that maybe Frankfurt was a bit flowery in their language. And, maybe Jagulard is right, and the American right is falling apart. But the initial text still seems out of place and in need of editing. Plus, Smerdis of Tlon's comment assumes an interesting point, that anything out of center is a part of some flight to be radical and posture, thereby anything non-center is bound to be tied up in flaws. Which is, to me, horseshoe theory misapplied, an apples to oranges comparison. PagesUponPages (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)PagesUponPages


 * I can definitely see Smerdis' point, too: both Frankfurt and Neoreaction are prone to very bad writing, either from deliberate obscurantism, poor writing skills, or having nothing substantial to write about. But, of course, the similarity does not necessarily demonstrate a connection. On the other point, I must disagree: Frankfurt does not suggest a collapse of the political left. The academic left, or the decline of the humanities in general? Sure, that's a definite possibility. Jagulard (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If we define the problem as the 'alt-right' rather than neoreaction narrowly defined, they appear to have captured one of the major US political parties, which seems a remarkable achievement. Leftism in the USA has been mostly an irrelevant force until the past year or so.  It is rooted in the college towns, and is too easily distracted by purely symbolic controversies.  This is because it is improperly focused on 'whose voices are getting heard' rather than who has bread to eat.  It has thrown the labor movement under the bus, and perceives manual workers as retrograde troglodytes, to focus on the concerns of well-educated bien-pensants.  And ultimately, the influence of the Frankfurt School bears much blame for this weakness. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the alt-right has captured one of the major political parties in the United States, but I must disagree on Leftism. Your comments are essentially criticizing the turn in focus that the Left had seen around the 1940s, where the Old Left, focused on labor concerns, was left in the dust for the more identity focused New Left. And while some problems have certainly come out of this movement, I do not think the left is a completely disorderly movement because of this. It seems that this idea that Frankfurt lead to the Left's downfall is flawed, as it plays into the idea of Cultural Marxism, which is to any sane person pure conspiracy. And, it seems that the image of the Left today, being a movement that only cares about identity politics rather than practical application, is within itself flawed. Much of the Left does work towards rational and practical approaches to problems, very much so improving the lives of the economically downtrodden. The image of the Left only caring about identity politics is a poor caricature conceived by many right-wingers to downplay the movement. Plus, identity politics are typically not bad. The idea that identity politics is a waste of time is flawed, as understanding the character of individuals in society can help us (society) work to make society as a whole a better place for persons with characters that are prone to bigotry. Analyzing identity certainly is not some ivory tower, college campus mode of thinking, rooted in posturing or slacktivism. Identity analysis can reap great benefit. PagesUponPages (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)PagesUponPages


 * The comparison is horseshoe theory in action: "I don't like these disparate things so I'll call them the same". I think the comparison should be removed - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I want to revert the changes. I corrected the page initially, removing the comparisons. But Smerdis of Tlon undid what I did. I do still want the comparison removed, but fear undoing his undoing will only bring about an edit conflict, so I will wait for him to respond. PagesUponPages (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)PagesUponPages


 * I also think it should go, unless we can find a stronger connection (this is also a good example of why the horseshoe is such a poor theory). Jagulard (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to the text, although I think the comparison is valid. I remember reading a piece which basically said that neoreaction chose its positions mostly for the shock value of their sheer awfulness, although I seem to have misplaced the link.  I do think that the comparison to Adorno and Horkheimer should stay, but don't care much about the rest. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I still want to make a change, yet did not want to offend you as you redid my original one. Can I still make that change, as you have claimed not to be "wedded to the text"? If not, what do you recommend? PagesUponPages (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)PagesUponPages
 * Good job. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with the current wording - David Gerard (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)