in the past, you've made a claim about conservatives. they don't like change you said.
exactly. that's one argument in the intellectual tradition. robin thinks that the people who say this about reactionaries are wrong.
why? because: look around. reactionaries are pretty fucking activist it seems in their desire to radically change a lot of stuff. don't like change? pshaw. they appear to fucking love change.
it is this, the fact that there seems to be a weird contradiction here -- the popular claim that cons don't like change up against a reality in which cons / reactionaries love change -- that interests him. is argument is that the core of what it means to be a conservative has zero to do with tryinng to hold back the tides of change or even to make radically changes to get back to the way things were before. they aren't trying to get back to the way things were before Corey argues.
all of this to say: this is why it's fucking irritating to talk to people who don't read a book.
the title is a fucking literary device for fuck's sake.
you are right to be suspicious that the title points to something intelletually obnoxious IME, but this is not it.
that said, the use of passive voice throughout the book is irritating as fuck.
At 10:43 PM 2/3/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>To go back to what bothered me in the first place.
>
>"The Reactionary Mind" is a non-entity. It's dreamed up by someone to
>justify maundering on for a while. Define it. Point to the evidence that THE
>reactionary mind exists. Is a Jungian archetype or something, collective
>unconscious. We really are in a never-never land where the absurd premise
>operates that if you can coin a phrase something in the world obviously
>corresponds to it and must be explained.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)