> The city is an omen of its presence: “Once a society becomes primarily urban, it is locked into a process of metastasising growth which will, in the end, lead to the destruction of other ways of being.” “The Machine is the liberal anticulture made manifest.”
> And what is to be done? The answer to the Machine, for Kingsnorth, lies not in the Right or the Left, not in capitalism or communism, not in some ideological system or set of conceptual abstractions. [...] The closest we may get in the book to a description of how to secure a more humane future is the term “reactionary radicalism,” which Kingsnorth borrows from sociologist Craig Calhoun. It is a way of life that thrives on tradition, in a local place, in prayer, among a people. “The moral economy rarely makes rational sense. But it makes human sense, which is what matters.”
The book seems to follow the almost traditional dichotomy between "perverted", growth-at-all-costs urban techno-libertarianism (with some stings at liberalism for some reason) and "pure" rural Christian traditionalism.
As a liberal leftist, none of those two systems look particularly appealing to me. Are there no other options that the author could imagine?
It's 2026, all gods should be dead by now.
> The city is an omen of its presence: “Once a society becomes primarily urban, it is locked into a process of metastasising growth which will, in the end, lead to the destruction of other ways of being.” “The Machine is the liberal anticulture made manifest.”
> And what is to be done? The answer to the Machine, for Kingsnorth, lies not in the Right or the Left, not in capitalism or communism, not in some ideological system or set of conceptual abstractions. [...] The closest we may get in the book to a description of how to secure a more humane future is the term “reactionary radicalism,” which Kingsnorth borrows from sociologist Craig Calhoun. It is a way of life that thrives on tradition, in a local place, in prayer, among a people. “The moral economy rarely makes rational sense. But it makes human sense, which is what matters.”
The book seems to follow the almost traditional dichotomy between "perverted", growth-at-all-costs urban techno-libertarianism (with some stings at liberalism for some reason) and "pure" rural Christian traditionalism.
As a liberal leftist, none of those two systems look particularly appealing to me. Are there no other options that the author could imagine?