March 22, 2025
Hello and thank you for taking the time to visit Revolutionary Restraint. It would seem appropriate, in this first post, to try to explain a bit about my motivations for starting this project and what I hope to accomplish by it.
But, first things first, let me introduce myself. My name is Leon Larkin and, truth be told, I’m really not all that interesting, but, at any rate, I suppose I should say a bit about my background, as it speaks to my motivation for starting this website. Let’s see, where to start? Well, I am a student of philosophy and history. I earned bachelor’s degrees in both subjects from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 2016. Since graduating (oh how quickly a decade passes!), I have been working in education which, despite my many frustrations with the state of education (we will probably get to some of these eventually), has fortunately allowed me the time to continue my studies independently. I also used this time to work on my writing, ultimately producing a handful of essays and two books. Looking back, however, most of these works were immature and are no longer relevant. While some of them might still be floating around somewhere, unbeknownst to me, the only one of these works that I continue to be pleased with is the second book, which led to my recent decision to formally publish that work. That book, if you’ll kindly permit me to engage in a little shameless self-promotion, can be purchased here. To be sure, my views have evolved considerably since I wrote this book and I would approach a number of sections much differently if I were to rewrite it now, but I still stand by the overall project and as it deals with a number of themes that I hope to continue to develop, I think it serves as a solid introduction to the general direction of my thought. Since writing that work, I have had the good fortune of experiencing an explosion of inspiration, with visions for future works constantly popping into my head. I have begun working on several of the projects that have occurred to me and made some decent progress on some of them, but these are large, time consuming projects which I don’t expect to be fit for release for sometime (if you haven’t picked up on it yet, I have a tendency to be rather long winded and to, at times, dance around a point before finally getting to it). Yet, at the same time, I feel a compelling sense of urgency to express some of these ideas to others and to participate in the public forum. This brings me to my first reason for creating this website: I intend to use this site as an outlet where I can air some of my ideas in a more relaxed, informal setting and hopefully get some constructive feedback and foster further conversation. Perhaps focusing on shorter, more succinct, writings here will help to work out some of my long windedness.
Now, before going any further, there’s something I need to get off my chest. It was my love for history that initially drew me to the study of philosophy, thus, it should come as no surprise that, until rather recently, my studies in philosophy have been more backward than forward looking. Moreover, this tendency has also permeated many other aspects of my life in addition to my philosophical interests. Don’t get me wrong, I am beyond grateful for the multitude of simple comforts modernity has brought us. I have never been a luddite, but I have also never been much of a tech person either. So, I must confess: I have no idea what the fuck I’m doing making a website! Please bear with me through any technical difficulties that will almost inevitably arise. I will do my best to handle any problems as quickly as I can. And please know that I would be beyond grateful for any bit of constructive advice that anyone might be able to offer me. Over the last few years, however, I have gradually come to the conclusion that this has been a crucial oversight on my part. As the 118th Psalm tells us “The stone that the builders refused has become the chief cornerstone” (or you could hear it from Bob Marley. Better still, give this acoustic version a shot.). This is a maxim which my experiences have confirmed countless times and which I suspect to become something of a theme of this website. This leads me to a second reason I have for starting this site: I hope for it not only to be a place where I can start to explore some of my thoughts on more future oriented topics and, perhaps, receive some feedback from people who are more intimately familiar with the relevant fields, but also as a means of learning some new skills that might put me on a more equal footing with some of my more technologically savvy peers.
Now, with all of that out of the way, we can get to one of my main reasons for starting this website: I intend to use this site as a place to discuss politics. Now, I know that the mention of that one word, politics, especially in the current climate, is liable to cause a significant portion of my audience to immediately recoil in disgust and stop reading. Believe me, I understand this temptation perfectly well. Indeed, I suspect I understand it better than many of the readers who had such a reaction. Politics served, in many ways, as my point of introduction to the broader philosophical tradition. I began, as so many do, by taking interest in the popular political debates of the day, however, I soon grew to find myself highly dissatisfied with the way these debates were conducted. I found that most discourse remained at the mere surface level, people talked past one another, and few bothered to elaborate the ultimate principles on which their positions were founded, nor did they seem to care to understand the foundational principles of their opponents. Dissatisfied, I began to turn my attention to proper political philosophers to see if I could begin to discern what was truly at stake in all of the debates around me and whether I could identify sound principles to guide me as I navigated the political landscape. As I studied, I quickly realized that political philosophy, by itself, could not adequately provide me with the answers I was so desperately looking for. First, I realized that all political questions actually form a subset of a broader group of questions that could be classified as ethical and that, if I was ever to arrive at a true political theory, I would first have to discover a true ethical theory to serve as its foundation. But as my attention turned to moral philosophy, I gradually came to the realization that even this field of thought would not be adequate in itself to provide me with the answers I was looking for. If I wanted to reach a moral theory whose truth I could be confident in, I would not only have to first gain a deeper understanding of the nature and operation of the things around us and our world, but I would also have to gain a deeper insight into the nature and foundations of knowledge itself. Thus, I began more and more to turn my attention to the study of metaphysics and epistemology. It was through my study of these disciplines that I first began to see philosophy as an end in itself rather than a mere instrumental good, useful for resolving mundane disputes. As my thought turned to this higher level philosophical thought, it felt as though my spirit itself were ascending on the back of my thoughts. I came to regard the elation that came from such contemplation to be the highest and most worthy form of pleasure imaginable. Mill had been right, the condition of the satisfied swine is by no means preferable to that of Socrates dissatisfied. I began to focus more and more on metaphysical and epistemological concerns, allowing the political concerns that had served as my entry into philosophy to take a back seat. Nevertheless, I still tried to stay engaged with politics, hoping that the insights I had gained from the philosophical study of the subject might be of some use in resolving some of the disputes that had come to dominate politics. But as our politics degenerated and became ever more divisive, I slowly came to the realization that my youthful idealism was unrealistic. The hope that people might come together honestly and rationally and resolve their differences in a peaceful and productive way seemed increasingly futile. Trying to navigate through the name calling, vitriol, and dishonesty of the political landscape in order to find forums for genuine attempts at productive and insightful discussion, I slowly grew to hate politics. As my frustrations came to a head, I finally resolved to turn my back on politics entirely and to bury my head in those more sublime studies of metaphysics and epistemology for several years. Still, in the back of my head, I knew that abstract speculation could not insulate me from the harsh realities of politics forever. Even if I had lost interest in politics, that didn’t mean that politics had lost interest in me. This became all too clear as my studies led me to consider the philosophical implications of psychedelic substances, which inspired me to write my second book. Now, given the harsh laws that regulate psychedelic substances, it became increasingly clear that political considerations might even impact my ability to freely investigate metaphysical and epistemological considerations and that I would have to take an interest in politics once more. I see now that though politics is perhaps the basest of all subjects which serves largely as a distraction from higher and more valuable matters, it is also impossible to ignore, for it is only through careful and prudent attention to political matters that we might secure a society that is stable enough to allow the contemplation of those higher matters which politics distract us from to take place at all. It would be better, however, if there was no need to waste time and energy on such matters, if we could settle political disputes once and for all, if we could establish an order which could guarantee that all people may live freely in pursuit of whatever they find most valuable forever more. Understood in this way, the greatest goal that politics can accomplish is to deliver the world from itself. Though this may be far easier said than done and the possibility of realizing such a goal may prove to be a long way off, a guiding principle of this site will be the understanding that the ultimate goal of politics is the dissolution of the very need for politics. That being the case, while many of the topics I intend to discuss on this website may appear, on the surface, to be political, it would be more appropriate to list such discussions under the heading of “antipolitics.” Antipolitics, therefore, will be another recurring theme of this website. It is my hope that by taking this antipolitical approach we might rise above the vicissitudes of everyday politics and not only find solutions to the various problems that plague politics, but also that we might gradually begin to ascend to the contemplation of those higher ideas which political disputes necessarily distract us from. So please, if you are amongst those tempted to stop reading at the mention of politics, I implore you to resist that temptation and try to hear me out, at least for a little while.
At this point, there are bound to be some readers dying to figure out where precisely my political sympathies lie. For the sake of candor, I should say that for most of my adult life I have seen myself as falling firmly within the American right libertarian tradition. While I still in large part agree with the basic principles of that school of thought, for various reasons I don’t believe that that label any longer adequately describes my position. Among the reasons that I can no longer count myself strictly within the camp of right libertarianism is that to identify with any given school of thought would be contrary to the spirit of antipoliticism. By adopting this firmly antipolitical stance we gain the distinct advantage of not needing and, indeed, being positively prohibited, from identifying with any particular political camp, as to do so would be to descend back into the chaos that is partisan politics. This is not to say that we should entirely ignore all political factions. On the contrary, we must give all political factions equal weight, not necessarily because all factions are morally, intellectually, or in any other way equal; they most certainly are not; nor because we necessarily have any points of agreement with all factions – we most certainly need not – but because every political faction necessarily reflects the hopes and interests of real people with real stakes in the outcome of political disputes. If there is to be any hope of reconciling the many factions that dot the political landscape and achieving a state of maximum harmony while using minimal violence, it is necessary that we take all factions seriously so that we might search for solutions that will leave all parties as satisfied as possible. In the time I have paid serious attention to politics, at some time or another, I have found myself at points nearly all around the political compass (while far superior to the two dimensional political spectrum, the political compass still falls far short of capturing all of the intricacies and nuances of political affiliation. Perhaps this will have to be a topic we come back to at some point.). This being the case, wherever you might see fit to place my thought on the political compass now, I still maintain a certain degree of sympathy for all of the camps I have associated with at one time or another and I have tried as much as possible to understand and appreciate even those camps I have never associated with and never hope to. For that reason, I sincerely want to try to construct a political philosophy with the goal of producing the best possible result for all political camps, acknowledging that all of these camps have certain fundamental differences that may, at the end of the day, prove irreconcilable. But there is a certain danger in this project. In order to ensure that we give all camps adequate consideration, we must maintain a certain open mindedness, even in the face of ideologies we find positively repulsive. It is important that we do not allow our open mindedness to lead to an infection that undermines our fundamental principles. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to state a number of guiding principles that shall lead us in our journey as we proceed.
Another reason we must reject political labels is that such labels have been misused and abused so much that many are effectively meaningless. Who can really say what terms like capitalism, socialism, fascism, and communism mean in a manner that will be acceptable to all? Thus, one of our guiding principles will be to avoid such labels whenever possible, instead professing a policy of always stating our positions and proposals as clearly and specifically as we possibly can. So, in the first place, to give you an idea of what I ultimately hope to achieve, let me state my idea of utopia: In my ideal world all people would live in a state of perfect freedom, in which no one must be subject to the will of another; a world in which no one must submit themselves to another for either sustenance or protection; a world in which people need not toil long hours just to secure their basic means of sustenance and in which, having been freed from the tyranny of labour, they might devote much of their time to intellectual and artistic pursuits, some to spiritual pursuits, and the rest to the enjoyment of the company of their friends and families. If this vision sounds appealing to you, then you already have reason to continue reading. If for some reason it does not, fear not. I will not force you to live how I see fit, and I will gladly work alongside you to secure a world in which you might live in a way you see fit, so long as that does not entail interfering with my ability to live as I see fit. Perhaps the core principle of the political philosophy I hope to advance here can best be summed up with a quote from Lysander Spooner’s (a political philosopher who this website would like to promote as a strong candidate for helping to bridge many political divides, but we will have to save that for another time) Natural Law,
Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus the very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike, or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another; that one child must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to live together in peace on any other condition.
Though, admittedly, it is much easier to pay such principles lip service than to actually adhere to them and the instances in which societies have actually adhered to them are few and far between, if not entirely non-existent, the self-evident truth of these principles can hardly be questioned, so much so that most of us feel a certain sense of compulsion to instill them in our own children. Therefore, it shall be the position of this site that the true essence of morality is captured in its entirety in Spooner’s account of this simple, child’s morality. This is the spirit that must animate all members of society if a truly ideal world is ever to be achieved, and if such an ideal world is to be achieved through ideal means, it must be brought about only through actions consistent with the principles of this child’s morality. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that these simple moral ideals we hold so dear suddenly stop operating in politics, precisely where they begin to matter. We must regard all attempts to complicate matters and invalidate these rules on the basis of their simplicity as nothing more than hopeless sophisms.
I distinctly recall one of the first philosophy lectures I ever attended. It was my first semester of college. The professor quoted the following lines from Walt Whitman’s poem “Song of Myself”,
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself
(I am large, I contain multitudes.His point in quoting this poem was to display precisely the sort of attitude that is unbecoming of a philosopher. The philosopher, I recall him arguing, must not be content to justify his self-contradiction on the basis of his being large or containing multitudes, but must, instead, commit himself to identifying such contradictions and resolving them as far as possible. At the time, behind the rose-tinted glasses of youthful optimistic rationalism, I could find no fault in the professor’s point. It seemed perfectly reasonable that the philosopher, in his commitment to truth and wisdom, ought to tolerate no internal inconsistencies within himself. But as time has gone on, experience and maturity have helped me to develop a growing sympathy for Whitman’s position. The man of perfect self-consistency may well remain a worthy ideal for the philosopher to aspire to, but he remains just that, an ideal. Reality is messy and complicated and we are all pulled this way and that by a multitude of different impulses, values, and interests, all competing with one another for dominance, making an existence entirely free of contradictions highly unlikely. We can rest assured that if such thoroughgoing self-consistency were ever to be achieved in a living man, that man would be so simple and one-dimensional so as to be of no interest to anyone whatsoever, except insofar as such an extreme degree of simplicity would have to itself be considered interesting as a true anomaly of nature. At last the lesson which I had accepted so easily all those years ago has finally been lost on me and I have learned, rather than to rage against it, to make peace with contradiction. The task of the real, flesh and blood philosopher, must not be to totally exorcise himself of each and every contradiction he can find inside himself, but to identify his contradictions, acknowledge them, and work to ensure that in the case of as many contradictions as possible, the most beneficial side ultimately wins out and gains influence over one’s actions at the proper times. This tolerance, within a limit, of contradiction is to be a recurring theme of his website, so let me at once express a crucial contradiction: Whatever the various political persuasions of my readers, let me say clearly and decisively: I love you all and I genuinely wish the best for all of you. But with that off my chest, I must proceed by saying: I hate you all and I probably want absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of you. Paradoxically, this probably applies most of all to those I most hope to reach, for who can take an active interest in politics without being, at least on some level, an insufferable bastard? Do I contradict myself? Perhaps I do. But, nonetheless, these contradictory sentiments do both exist in me, each exerting its influence on myself and my actions at various times. To fail to take account of both of these sentiments merely on the grounds that they contradict each other would be to do violence to reality, which can only harm our calculations and cause us to fall short of our goals. Nor am I alone in harboring this contradiction. On the contrary, this contradiction seems to characterize the very essence of human relations; a curse destined to plague humanity wherever they go for all time. This phenomena is clearly indicated in the work of Arthur Schopenhauer; oh Schopenhauer, that most sublime of curmudgeons, who, in addition to introducing the wisdom of the East to Western philosophy and identifying the Will as the thing-in-itself, was among the first to recognize that the world is, at bottom, irrational and that any attempt to understand it through reason alone is bound to fall short of its goal; a philosopher we will most certainly meet with again. (Schopenhauer’s influence on my own philosophy is in itself a sort of contradiction. Schopenhauer was amongst the first western philosophers to seriously and openly embrace atheism, yet my own philosophy is decidedly theistic and it is the influence of Schopenhauer, perhaps more than any other philosopher, that has served to make me most confident in my theism. Indeed, in general, atheistic philosophers have tended to have a much stronger impact on my own thought than have theist philosophers. But perhaps this is not so strange after all. Like Schopenhauer, I am a Kantian. Among the most remarkable feats of that philosopher from Konigsberg was his synthesis of the rational and empirical tendencies in European philosophy. It is out of admiration for that great synthesizer that I routinely seek out paths that could dissipate the tensions between apparently opposing intuitions. To this end, I especially hope that the intersections and supposed conflicts between reason, science, and religion will become a recurring topic of exploration on this site.) (Somebody please teach me how to add footnotes!) He writes in his Parerga and Paralipomena,
One cold winter’s day, a number of porcupines huddled together quite closely in order through their mutual warmth to prevent themselves from being frozen. But they soon felt the effect of their quills on one another, which made them again move apart. Now when the need for warmth once more brought them together, the drawback of the quills was repeated so that they were tossed between two evils, until they had discovered the proper distance from which they could best tolerate one another. Thus the need for society which springs from the emptiness and monotony of men’s lives, drives them together; but their many unpleasant and repulsive qualities and insufferable drawbacks once more drive them apart. The mean distance which they finally discover, and which enables them to endure being together, is politeness and good manners. Whoever does not keep to this, is told in England to ‘keep his distance’. By virtue therefore, it is true that the need for mutual warmth will be only imperfectly satisfied, but on the other hand, the prick of the quills will not be felt. Yet whoever has a great deal of
Schopenhauer’s observations are to be ever present in our mind for all of the deliberations we enter into here. Though we profess an undying love for humanity and an earnest desire to see all people flourish to the greatest possible extent, we also recognize that people can be a vicious, contemptible, and intolerable lot. At times, we would be forgiven for thinking it more improbable that two people should enjoy each other’s company than that two people should come to regard each other as irreconcilable enemies. Thus, whatever solutions we propose for our political problems, we must take adequate account of this tendency of men to injure each other in their attempts to draw near to each other, and provide ample opportunities for escape in order to ensure that pressures can be made to dissipate before they become injurious.
This leads us to another contradiction that this website will gladly embrace, namely the contradictions between idealism and realism. While we remain ultimately idealist in our goals, we will maintain a strictly realist perspective in strategizing how to realize that ideal. In practice, what this means is that, though we would ideally like to see humanity genuinely join hands under a common set of values that serve to maximize happiness throughout society, we recognize that such a degree of societal harmony is unlikely to be realized, at least in the short term, therefore, we must be realistic and be on the lookout for a second best solution. We recognize that humanity is divided by a number of fundamental disagreements which are not likely to be overcome without considerable time and effort, if they can ever be overcome at all. Moreover, any attempt to force reconciliation in these matters is likely only to make matters worse. Thus, our primary goal must not be to do away with these fundamental disagreements, but to identify means of dissipating the tensions that arise from these disagreements before they lead to greater unrest. Though we encourage lively and vigorous debate on all topics, we must not let ourselves come to an impasse by continuing debates in which there is little hope of progress, nor should we resort to hostility when such impasses arise. While I wish we all could agree to disdain the nastiness that is, say, racism, the fact remains that there are racists and there is little we can do to change such opinions (perhaps contemplation of higher level philosophy can help to correct this, but for philosophy to have any hopes of solving this problem, we must establish a genuinely philosophical culture, which will take considerable time and effort). But when we enter into a political dispute with a racist, what good can name calling and moral indignation do to resolve our differences. Either the racist will happily agree with our accusation and it will have no persuasive power, or they will deny it, perhaps taking offense and jeopardizing future negotiations. Thus, such rhetoric is ultimately useless and we must always heed the advice of the great samurai, Miyamoto Musashi, and be careful to “do nothing that is of no use.” So long as there remains a hope for dissipating our tensions and arriving at a solution in which all parties can tolerate one another and leave each other in peace, we must pursue those solutions. To this end we will take to heart a motto that has animated great thinkers from Plato to Benjamin Franklin. As the great twentieth century philosopher, Hiram Hank Williams, put it, “Mind your own business and you won’t be mindin’ mine.” (If it has not become abundantly clear at this point, as a good Schopenhauerian, I find just as much, if not more, meaning in music as I do in philosophy, so I would like to make a habit of linking to relevant music to act as a sort of soundtrack to our discussions.)
All of this being said, we must turn our attention now to our name, Revolutionary Restraint, and the reasons for choosing that name. I admittedly did not think of it right away. My initial instinct was to try to come up with a name that would adequately describe the philosophy I aim to advance here. I first thought of the proliferation of neo ideologies in recent years – neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neomarxism, neoreaction – so I considered jumping on the bandwagon and coming up with a neo name. First, given my commitment to hearing out all sides, I considered Neocentrism. It didn’t sound awful, but then again, everyone seems to hate centrists, so why shoot myself in the foot right off the bat, especially when my goal is to address highly divisive topics. I next considered Neolibertarianism, but it didn’t quite have the ring I was looking for and, besides, it seems there is already a movement going by that name (I admittedly am not familiar with this school of thought, but based on the description here, it seems to be little more than a rebranding of Rawlsian style liberalism). Next I considered Neophilosophy, but this felt over academic and pretentious. Neopolitics suffered from the same problems, along with the fact that a call for a “new politics” might actually be taken in a way totally contrary to our antipolitical goals, as a call to reinvigorate politics. At any rate, after much mental tinkering, I finally came upon the name Revolutionary Restraint (truth be told, I juggled between that and Restrained Revolution for a few minutes, but it quickly became apparent which was superior). I quickly realized that this was the perfect name. In the first place, it was catchy and alliterative. But more importantly, it perfectly reflected the sentiment that I hoped to express. It seems that regardless of what faction you identify with, there is a general agreement that there is something deeply wrong with the system we currently have and there is a need for some sort of meaningful revolution, whatever shape that might take. And according to the guiding principles that we have laid out here, I must concur with this assessment. That being said, revolutions, more often than not, are nasty affairs. They should not be undertaken without sufficient cause, and even then, those that undertake them must do so with a great deal of reservation and give careful consideration to the abominations they threaten to unleash with their actions. There can be little doubt that if every faction that currently finds itself disgruntled were to unleash their revolutionary impulses at the same time we would be plunged into a world of chaos populated by abominations such as have never been seen before. Thus, though we must acknowledge our right to revolution, we must be incredibly prudent about how and when we pursue revolutionary ends in order to ensure that we only improve the world through revolution and never make it worse. Thus, in its first sense, Revolutionary Restraint, refers to the due restraint we must exercise when approaching revolution. But there is a second, more radical, sense in which Revolutionary Restraint might be understood. In this second sense restraint itself becomes the means through which revolution is to be achieved. Consequently, the revolution championed by this website is not the familiar or conspicuous sort of revolution, characterized by confrontational demonstrations, aggressive disruption of civil society, or armed uprisings. Such explosive tactics very often fall short of their goals and often threaten to create more problems than they solve. In contrast, we will take a much more conservative approach to revolution. We must make peace with the fact that utopia, if it can be achieved at all, is not likely to be achieved at once through one final decisive action. Though we must remain ever committed to our principles and our long term goals, it will be our policy to seek the realization of those principles through the path of least resistance, even if such a strategy is destined to prolong our struggle.
Though I have focused my most intensive studies on the Western philosophical tradition, having studied martial arts for most of my life, my earliest introduction to proper philosophy was through the Chinese classics. These traditions, especially Taoism, continue to exert considerable influence on my thinking and my approach to life more generally. Given our passive approach to revolution, the ancient Chinese principle of wu wei, often translated as “action through nonaction”, along with its modern, western counterpart, laissez-faire, are to be of central importance to us. In the spirit of these principles this website is to remain committed to the principles of free and voluntary trade and association. Such a declaration is certain to immediately raise red flags for our left leaning readers. Let me try to assuage some of their concerns. In the first place, such a position is necessary if our end goals are ever to be achieved, as any position that advocates limiting free association and trade is contrary to those goals. Second, we must be perfectly clear about the fact that what exists now is far from a system of true free trade and association and, in this respect, we must maintain a sort of affinity with the left in their disdain for the so-called capitalist elite who have done a great deal to hamper free participation in the market. And though we recognize the utility of markets we, at the same time, disdain the logic of profit for profit’s sake and the highly superficial culture that the prioritization of profits has brought about. Revolutionary Restraint is not content with maintaining the status quo, but is earnestly committed to the realization of a more perfect world. Moreover, while Revolutionary Restraint maintains that in a truly free and just society, there would be no need for market interventions aimed at righting perceived injustices, we recognize that the current economic system is built on widespread injustice, thus we recognize that some interventions, even of a redistributive nature, may be necessary and justified in order to achieve a world where no such interventions shall be needed again. We will return to this last point in a later essay.
A central theme of Revolutionary Restraint is the importance of philosophy. Not only is philosophy to play a central role in the realization of a more perfect world, but it is my contention, as it was Socrates’, that philosophy is indispensable to the living of a good life and, even more importantly, to dying a good death. Unfortunately, despite the incredible progress philosophy has made over the last two millennia, philosophers have done a terrible job of making their discipline accessible to the general public. Revolutionary Restraint seeks to take steps to remedy this state of affairs by trying to make difficult philosophical concepts more accessible to the average person, in order to foster a genuinely philosophical popular culture. For this reason, Revolutionary Restraint will not be solely focused on political philosophy, but will also, from time to time, explore questions in more exalted areas of philosophy.
One area in which the realization of a genuinely philosophical culture is to be crucial is that of emerging technology. I suspect that many emerging technologies open the door to new strategies for achieving the sort of world we hope to achieve, however, at the same time, many of these technologies also have an opposite potential that could jeopardize all that we value. Things are about to get very strange and the average person is going to be in need of the tools of philosophical thinking in order to make sense of it all and determine how to proceed.
For now though, our most pressing task lies in trying to understand the current political landscape, and the interests, values, and goals of the various factions that populate it so that we may understand our current position and begin to search for escape routes. Unfortunately, there are far too many factions for us to consider each individually and in detail, so, while we must be very careful about making sweeping generalizations and grouping factions that may have substantial disagreements together under a single label, to some extent this will be unavoidable if we are to make any progress at all. Despite the many grounds on which we might object to the reduction of all political disagreements to the left-right political spectrum, we must admit that these labels do possess at least a limited degree of utility and that their utility might be increased if we are to integrate their political sense with their occult sense; this will be the first topic we will address in our next post. So, despite my reservations, I will use the terms “left” and “right” for their utility in describing the major currents of contemporary political thought. We will begin by attempting to understand the current state of the left before proceeding to an examination of the right. Before proceeding, I must issue a warning to my left leaning readers; we must address a number of truths that will likely be quite hard to swallow. But please, do not mistake my honesty for hostility. The left, currently, finds itself in a state of extreme degradation, uncertain of its own values or goals or of what it must do to secure them. I say this not out of animosity, but out of genuine concern. The left must come to terms with its disordered lack of direction if it is to overcome it and avoid becoming an impotent laughing stock. As the right experiences an unheard of moment of vigor and resurgence, the rehabilitation of the left is of more vital importance than ever as there is a crucial need for a proper counterbalance to the influence of the right. For that reason, I must earnestly ask my left leaning readers to bear with me through the next couple of essays. Hopefully by the time we reach the third essay you will be relieved at the sight of a light at the end of the tunnel and you will see that this journey has been worthwhile. Among the thinkers who have been crucial in bringing me up to speed on matters surrounding modern and future technologies was a group of philosophers who worked out of Warwick University in England known as the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU). Among the members of this group were Mark Fisher and Nick Land. In the aftermath of the CCRU these two philosophers traversed very different paths, with Fisher’s Capitalist Realism becoming a sort of foundational text for the post-2008 left, and Land’s sensibilities drifting to the right, leading him to become a leading figure of what he calls the Dark Enlightenment, or Neoreaction. In the coming posts we will follow the trajectories of these former colleagues’ careers, treating them as microcosms of the left and right who reflect the general state of their respective camps.
I will not make any projection as to when my next essay will be posted or how often this website can be expected to be updated. My hope is to eventually post an essay a week or, at least, every other week, but as I wait to welcome my second child sometime in the next month, this might prove a bit ambitious. I intend to set up a subscription service to notify readers when new essays are posted, however I am currently running into some technical difficulties on that front, so please be patient. In the meantime, you can follow me at https://x.com/RevRestraint https://bsky.app/profile/leonlarkin.bsky.social or https://truthsocial.com/@LeonLarkin where I will be sure to keep you updated about all future posts. Thank you to all those who have made it this far, I hope that you will continue with me on this journey. Here’s to hoping that it shall be a joyful process. (What a great album! Parliament-Funkadelic’s best, in my book! So how about my favorite song on the album as a bonus. Both stylistically and lyrically, it reflects many of this website’s sentiments quite well. That pedal-steel man!)
One response to “An Introduction to Revolutionary Restraint”
Just testing the comment section.
Leave a Reply