The reasons why the roman empire prospered contrary to most medieval and pre industrial economies

Nothing is working and we are all that survive of the bridge crew.

The reasons why the roman empire prospered contrary to most medieval and pre industrial economies

I no longer endorse all the statements in this document. I think many of the conclusions are still correct, but especially section 1 is weaker than it should be, and many reactionaries complain I am pigeonholing all of them as agreeing with Michael Anissimov, which they do not; this complaint seems reasonable.

This document needs extensive revision to stay fair and correct, but such revision is currently lower priority than other major projects.

Until then, I apologize for any inaccuracies or misrepresentations. What is this FAQ? It is meant to rebut some common beliefs held by the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction.

What are the common beliefs of the political movement called Reaction or Neoreaction? Neoreaction is a political ideology supporting a return to traditional ideas of government and society, especially traditional monarchy and an ethno-nationalist state.

It sees itself opposed to modern ideas like democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, and secularism. Will this FAQ be a rebuttal the arguments in that summary?

Some but not all. I worry I may have done too good a job of steelmanning Reactionary positions in that post, emphasizing what I thought were strong arguments, sometimes even correct arguments, but not really the arguments Reactionaries believed or considered most important.

Some of them seem really dumb to me and I excluded them from the previous piece, but they make it in here.

The reasons why the roman empire prospered contrary to most medieval and pre industrial economies

Other points from the previous post are real Reactionary beliefs and make it in here as well. Do all Reactionaries believe the same things? Even more confusingly, sometimes the same people seem to switch among the three without giving any indication they are aware that they are doing so.

In particular the difference between feudal monarchies and divine-right-of-kings monarchies seems to be sort of lost on many of them. Mencius is probably the most famous Reactionary, one of the founders of the movement, and an exceptionally far-thinking and knowledgeable writer. Michael is also quite smart, very prolific, and best of all for my purposes unusually willing to state Reactionary theories plainly and explicitly in so many words and detail the evidence that he thinks supports them.

Mencius usually supports a state-as-corporation model and Michael seems to be more to the feudal monarchy side, with both occasionally paying lip service to divine-right-of-kings absolutism as well. Are you going to treat Reaction and Progressivism as real things? One of the problems in exercises like this is how much to take political labels seriously.

Both combine many very diverse ideas, and sometimes exactly who falls on what side will be exactly the point at issue. Although debating the meaning of category words is almost never productive, I feel like in that case I have more than enough excuse.

Is everything getting worse? It is a staple of Reactionary thought that everything is getting gradually worse. As traditional ideas cede to their Progressive replacements, the fabric of society tears apart on measurable ways.

The present system has every incentive to portray itself as superior to all past systems. Reactionaries point out this is not the case, and actually see present society in a state of severe decline, pointing to historically high levels of crime, suicide, government and household debt, increasing time preference, and low levels of civic participation and self-reported happiness as a few examples of a current cultural and historical crisis.

Reactionaries usually avoid getting this specific, and with good reason. Now that Michael has revealed the domains in which he is critiquing modern society, we can start to double-check them to see whether Progressivism has indeed sent everything to Hell in a handbasket.

But I must set some strict standards here.There are those who in the realm of science fiction literature wonder if galactic empires are the new "Middle-Earth".But interstellar empires never seem to go out of style, and regardless of their practicality they remain a powerful meme.

The terrorist organization Aum Shinrikyo found inspiration in the galactic empire of Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. MAIN STREET WILL NEVER be the same if the flood of “legal” immigrants from Third World Nations is not brought to a definitive halt.

In a Presidential Memorandum to the US State Department dated 8 October , Obama announced that he will import an additional 80, immigrants — mostly from.

According to The Jewish Encyclopaedia, (Vol. XII () p 1), The Talmud is "the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools" and is .

ENERGY ENHANCEMENT IS THE SOLUTION!! Alex Jones looks through the Eye of Sauron, the father of lies, - news from the great lying satanic media empires - and .

You gotta have cash even in the future, otherwise you can't buy ashio-midori.comn socialist paradises excluded of course. Traditionally, the unit of currency in science fictional futures is called the "credit".This is the futuristic equivalent of a dollar, Euro, or whatever.

is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.

Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia