You’ve got to be kidding? Neoreactionary Soup and The Fall of Man

As a young man growing up in Texas, in the Bible-belt in the heart of “God’s Country” I dabbled with fire, I entered the dark waters, touched the serpent of that crazed god of the underworld of the U.S.A. My family was not only conservative, they were of the tribe of Paleoconservatives that came out of depression era economics: in the United States, the Southern Agrarians, John T. Flynn, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, Robert R. McCormick, Felix Morley, and Richard M. Weaver among others, articulated positions as paleoconservatives. Some have even offered up William Jennings Bryan, T. S. Eliot, Allen Tate, John Crowe Ransom, Cleanth Brooks, and Walker Percy as major paleo influences.

What this was all supposed to lead up to was my own counter-reaction to the web’s new Bad Boys: the NeoReactionaries. As I began moving out from Nick Land’s site over on Outside In I followed the trail to the tributary flow-boys that seem to make up this post-futurist paleodrome, a throwback to that Burkean matrix of rock gut conservatism they are now calling the Dark Enlightenment. The Neoreactionary movement is comic fanfest for the middling professional, an open joke that purports to offer ideological charms for the mystified net runners. Surfs up, the neo-reactionary tribes are on the loose. Let the surf wars begin.

One such member (Anomaly UK) of this paleotribal council sums up nicely his introduction to the Dark Enlightenment:

Most neoreactionary writing consists of detailed criticism of particular progressive reforms, with particular emphasis on the flaws in one specific idea — democracy.

Ultimately, however, if after all these centuries of trying to improve society based on abstract ideas of justice have only made life worse than it would have been under pre-Enlightenment social systems, the time has come to simply give up the whole project and revert to traditional forms whose basis we might not be able to establish rationally, but which have the evidence of history to support them. (quote from Anomaly UK)

So here it is, the basic platform: they seek to overthrow what they term the Cathedral, a metaphor that encompasses our modern progressive society in Europe and the U.S.A. The Cathedral seems to fit their conspiracy theories of how Communism took over the world through internal techniques of control by infiltrating our Government, the Academy, and our Think Tanks. One can find this on any great entertainment conspiracy site, one doesn’t need a mindless neoreactionary spouting well trod bullshit for us.

For a supposed philosophical rendition one can hop over to Scott Alexander’s blog where one is offered up Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell. Just what is this nutshell philosophy of the Reaction? He opens with his own perplexity, a quip and anecdote about his own confusion:

“I keep on reading all these posts by really smart people who identify as Reactionaries, and I don’t have any idea what’s going on. They seem to be saying things that are either morally repugnant or utterly ridiculous. And when I ask them to explain, they say it’s complicated and there’s no one summary of their ideas. Why don’t they just write one?”

So he did, and this is the fruit of it: click here…  Right off the bat he affirms that this movement isn’t about philosophical postulates and principles as much as it is about “poetry”. That’s right, folks, poetry… hmm, did I hear Plato rolling over in his grave? The more you read this little excursion into the philosophical underpinnings of this reactionary movement the more you realize it’s a little bit like following the trail of Manson and his minions across the planetary wastelands. He seems to have gotten his knowledge from the scrambled posts of Mencius Moldbug and a few shady denizens of IRC channels.

One of the key attributes of a neoreactionary he tells us is that they must “be highly politically incorrect and offensive, because that’s what Reactionaries do.” I want bore the reader with any quotes from the post. The point of the exercise for him was to understand the main point of the neoreactionary mind: that can be summed up easily – we are all captives of the modern liberal (Communist/Progressive) world, and it would be better to return to earlier more aristocratic regimes modeled on the power of God, Faith, and Country. So what’s the point? Even the neoreactionaries themselves state that there ideas are not new. Even that hypernihilist of the effete elite, Nick Land, himself sums it up:

…neoreaction is a time-crisis, manifested through paradox, whose further elaboration can wait (if not for long). Disordering our most basic intuitions, it is, by its very nature, difficult to grasp. Could anything easily be said about it? (Neoreaction for Dummies)

Yet, as Land continues with quote after quote from other like-minded neos of the reaction noosphere we learn a few things:

1. it seeks to subvert all forms of “social justice” and to return us to traditional forms (i.e., religion and kings);
2. it seeks to overthrow the radical enlightenment of light with darkness, to wipe the slate clean of progressive thought and ideology, and return us beyond a failed myth of Reason;
3. because all neoreactionaries define themselves through antagonism to the Cathedral, and the Cathedral is the self-proclaimed consummation of Enlightenment rationalism;
4. there are two lines of thought within the neoreactionary scenario: traditionalist and futurist.
5. under these are three sub-branches: religious/traditionalist branch, the ethnic/nationalist branch, and the capitalist branch.
6. the Burkean junction, where neoreactionary agreement begins, is also where it ends.

Ultimately we discover that the neoreactionary forces strive for divine revelation, racial continuity, and evolutionary discovery, which are sources of ultimate sovereignty, instantiated in tradition, beyond the Progressive State, but they are self-evidently different – and only precariously compatible. Awkwardly, but inescapably, it has to be acknowledged that each major branch of the neoreactionary super-family tends to a social outcome that its siblings would find even more horrifying than the Progressive alternative.

So is there any coherence to this madness? As I have wandered around in this muddle I am left completely mystified by the sheer idiocy of these ideas, or is there some dark wisdom under the hood that I have yet to discover? These are not so much ideas as they are a program for a comic barbarism, a return to the irrational systems of our forbears that the Age of Reason tried so desperately to overthrow. Who in their right mind would truly want such a return to pre-Enlightenment values? Is this really the wave of some neofuturist avant-garde? Or is it more likely the return to some neo-Nazis fetishization and a theatrical dramatics in outer and inner forms of the Cult of Death?

Nick Land of course is a follower of such thanatropic chaos and accelerated madness. He relates that Mencius Moldbug is the place to start if you want to discover the risible intellect of the tribe. So I’m off to meet the Wizard…. toto in tow…

———————————–

Here is a list of Neoreactionary blogs – the names tell it all:

83 thoughts on “You’ve got to be kidding? Neoreactionary Soup and The Fall of Man

  1. Moral panic isn’t an argument. Why not calm down, read Moldbug (rather than Alexander), and criticize his work with cool patience (as many of us do on the Dark Side). If you don’t find that prospect enticing, just ignore it, but you’ll be missing out on the most original political thinkers of our time.

    If you re-read your own post, I suspect you’ll find the hysterical tone a little embarrassing. You’re not going to catch moral leprosy. Your friends aren’t going to think you’ve gone Sith. Relax — it will help you think clearly.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yea, rhetoric has its ways, doesn’t it… and, of course most of this is to spark debate and rouse interest. Obviously a lot of what you do and the others I’ve read is more comic and satirical in its rifts and sound bytes. So yea, its worth a deeper look just to see where the madness leads. And if you read my short sci-fi excerpt you’d see this as diatribe, panegyric and satire as well. More of a cautionary tale that obviously goes both ways… for sure. The Cathedral of Time.

      Like

    • More specifically: read Moldbug on castes and caste conflict, and then on memeplexes and the secularization of Christianity. The Open Letter and Gentle Introduction are both more advanced and less important to neoreaction as a whole. If you end up reading Patchwork, read it as an expression of the positive values of Moldbug’s neoreaction (values which are far too libertarian for my taste; Moldbug never abandoned libertarianism, but merely accelerated it past itself, just as Hoppe and perhaps Kuehnelt-Leddihn did before him), not as a serious program.

      Like

  2. Yeah, agree with the above. The tone of outrage isn’t qualified by any logical objections because you never actually engage the arguments made by the neo-reactionaries. These arguments are new and legitimate, it might do you well to discuss them from your opposing perspective rather than dismiss them outright.

    Frankly, the response you did give only confirms what everyone is saying: That progressivism is the state ideology, that it is based on irrational dogma, and that it is effectively forbidden to question it. Do you really want to follow a belief system that relies on the suppression of dissent rather than factual superiority? If not, you’d better start acting like it and start defending your opinions.

    Like

      • NYDWRACU brings up a good point below which I think speaks to the heart of the issue: If you acknowledge that liberalism is an unfolding process as opposed to a static set of political platforms, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to be a radical leftist than a democrat — at least then you represent what you claim to represent, i.e. the endgame.

        See it from our perspective: On the flipside, it makes zero sense to be a republican or even a “conservative,” both of whom advocate taking the 90mph train and slowing it down to 88mph. Whether you support the endgame of liberalism as a radical or deny it as a neoreactionary, at least we’re both acknowledging the same reality.

        Like

    • Well, yeah, I don’t think anyone would see me as a liberal by any means. Been a card carrying communist with anarchistic leanings for most of my life. I think a great deal of my political posts rectify that. Obviously I don’t belong to some Party line sense the Big Other is what we are against in the old forms of Marxism.

      Like

  3. So is there any coherence to this madness?

    Ironically, the Trichotomy graphic you posted was an explicit attempt find and show coherent core of consensus to the various legs of reaction. It recognizes that the cultural zeitgeist is corrosive to multiple (all) particularities–most traditional, some not. So beside pointing and sputtering, what, if anything, do you say unites reactionaries? Is it really merely that we’re all just really really grumpy??

    Like

    • Ammunition for the fire… Actually, as a diatribe and panegyric its just that – a satiric jibe rather than reasoned argument. As in all things that comes next. Obviously the far right and far left are similar in our arguments, and the heart of the differences are usually far more nuanced than most ever realize. Economics is usually at the center of those debates: capitalism in particular. But there are others, and they all deserve a full and reasoned argument. Yep, I plan on doing what Land and others above and below suggest, now that the cat is out of the bag: read Mencius, digest the drift, organize the bullets, and shoot away. But who knows, I’m sure there are both points of agreement/disagreement to be had between both sides. This isn’t some mad exercise in irrationalism I’m at, although as you can see diatribe and panegyric if taken to heart does appear that way: but appearances are always deceiving. Yes?

      Like

      • Perhaps I should peruse the archives, but am I to believe that you are coming from the equal and opposite perspective: The Cathedral is not Progessive enough? My God, that is a cat from a bag of which I was not aware… Can’t you just wait a few years?… the mainstream will catch up with you. Remember Anita Bryant? Yeah, neither do I.

        Well, as they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity…

        Cheers!

        Like

      • Perhaps I should peruse the archives, but am I to believe that you are coming from the equal and opposite perspective: The Cathedral is not Progressive enough?

        That’s at least not inherently absurd: the Cathedral is liberal, and as such is open to critique from the left as well as the right. Note the replacement of class with identity as the determining factor for struggle: the Cathedral is so unconcerned with the existence of ‘lower-class’ whites (technically an abuse of ‘class’, but you get the idea) that it regularly forgets their existence in talking economics. When Cathedralites use the word ‘poor’ or any of its equivalents, there’s often an unspoken ‘urban’ preceding it — and it honestly seems to me that they don’t know any better.

        But that’s only one of many points. I’ve picked up bits and pieces of that critique, but I haven’t seen it properly articulated anywhere and I can’t claim to have a terribly good grasp on it either.

        Like

      • I’ll agree with you there: the Neoliberal Cathedral is subterfuge: its neither left or right, but a superficial simulacrum of both; they switch the copies every so often, but the power structure remains the same, and the bimbos that run the Finiancial apparatus keep their hands in the cookie jar. The military-industrial complex has cannibalized the world economy, while the IMF bleeds the third world and the poor of the first… we’re caught in a vice between State and Corporate enclaves thrashing each other when the real enemy hides behind their smiles.

        Like

      • The military-industrial complex has cannibalized the world economy, while the IMF bleeds the third world and the poor of the first… we’re caught in a vice between State and Corporate enclaves thrashing each other when the real enemy hides behind their smiles.

        I don’t think reactionaries would disagree with much in there. They would only add to “military-industrial complex”, the “healthcare-industrial complex”, the “education-industrial complex”, the “ngo-industrial complex”, the “diversity-industrial complex”, and probably 100 other complexes that I can’t think up on the spot. So the reactionary critique is one against complexes in general. And the one (and only one) way they arise is by demotic rent-seeking attaching state power (to tax to kill to regulate etc.). We would agree it is getting really murky where the frontier between USG and Goldman Sachs lies. If there is an anti-reactionary (Marxist?) argument that in principle disenfranchises Goldman Sachs without disenfranchising 98% of USG in its current form and, e.g., BRAC at the same time, I think your “enemies” would be all ears.

        Like

      • I think your pointing to the alignment of industrial = conglomerate/corporate-monopolistic institutions State or otherwise…. as for BRAC… wiki shows on the surface good things, but skeptic that I am I wonder at this line up of neoliberal supporters who gave awards:

        The Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership, 1980.[27]
        The Alan Shawn Feinstein World Hunger Award, 1990[28]
        The Maurice Pate Award by UNICEF, 1992 [3]
        The Olof Palme Prize, 2001[28]
        The Social Entrepreneurship Award by the Schwab Foundation, 2002 [4]
        The International Activist Award by the Gleitsman Foundation, 2003[28]
        The United Nations Development Programme Mahbub ul Haq Award, 2004[29]
        The Henry R. Kravis Prize in Leadership, 2007 [5]
        The inaugural Clinton Global Citizen Award, 2007 [6]
        The David Rockefeller Bridging Leadership Award, 2008
        Knighted by Queen Elizabeth, 2010 [7]
        WISE Prize, 2011

        I also tend to see in this large of an enterprise a question: who is minder of the keepers? Who is helping who in this? Who is really profiting behind the scenes for all this great work being done for the poor? I want to see figures rather than surface magic dust… one can always present a humanitarian face, but what is essential is to see the hive mind machines crunching the numbers beyond the human mask.

        Like

      • I also tend to see in this large of an enterprise a question: who is minder of the keepers?

        Right, to which the only conceivable answer is an even more powerful central control which will correspondingly amplify the demotic “rent” due. Lather, rinse, repeat. Elect a new people if you must. All of which is nothing other than the story of the growth of USG from too English for England backwater in 1787 to continental empire in 1865 to global empire since 1945. So let us break up the empire.

        Like

      • Yep, Noir, it’s imperative that you read Moldbug. 90% of all this is predicated on a clear understanding of who the ruling class actually is, and it’s almost certainly not who you think.

        Like

      • Yep, I intend too… seems most of the reactionists so far tend to see his writings as a litmus test for the philosophical and economic underpinnings of that ideological stance. I have already begun from his first post and will over time work through them all… I’m a ferocious reader and as the old saying goes: “Hold your friends close but hold your enemies closer.” For me it is close reading of that enemy that counts: knowing the exactness of their attributions, rather that the lackadaisical charms of their progeny. So, yea, thanks… it will take some time.

        Like

    • Haha… good one! That may actually be true, who knows if neoreactionism has a pattern? I assume as you stated in the previous one that I’ll need to dig a lot deeper to discover that pattern if there is one. The ‘all’ was just a grouping of kindred beings, nothing more, nothing less: just another jibe to spark the fires. Seems to have done that….

      Like

  4. Well, Noir, I see that your post got linked at Outside In. They’re amused.

    It would be possible to evaluate, rather than argue, neoreactionary positions on a point-by-point basis in some forum where neither side ganged up on the other. I don’t think there is such a forum at present. And while empirical evidence can be sifted and conclusions drawn, many of the principals are going to remain immune to evidence. So, e.g., Nick Land seems to advocate a government in which votes are based on the amount of property ownership, such that a billionaire will have a billion more votes than a citizen with no money in the bank. On what empirical grounds could this proposal be evaluated? It would be anticipated that the billionaires would join forces and vote in their best interests, and collectively they could outvote any opposition. Fair? Not to the 99% it’s not. But if that’s not a value one, um, values, then attempting to discuss the fairness of the proposition is a non-starter.

    The human biodiversity question refers to some empirical evidence to be evaluated, but it’s still going to be highly speculative. E.g., are some races or ethnic groups genetically more fit — smarter, assertive without being violent, creative, cooperative without being subject to groupthink — than others? I’ve not investigated it systematically, but there’s such a confound of variables in the real world that they’re difficult to pull apart. So, e.g., poor kids in the US have on average lower SAT scores than rich kids. Most studies across many human traits indicate that genes and culture are about 50-50 in their influence, so a culture of poverty likely inhibits SAT performance. But studies drilling down into these findings demonstrate that, while for kids from non-impoverished families genes account for 50% or so of the variance in SAT scores, for poor kids genes account for something like 20%. I.e., poverty suppresses the genetic inheritance of the sort of intelligence needed for doing well on SAT tests. So for poor kids culture accounts for 80% of the variance in SAT. So the empirical evidence is nuanced. One gets the sense reading the neoreactionaries, though, that the evidence supporting racial-ethhic genetic differences is well established. On the left, some tend to deny that poor kids don’t underperform on such tests. Neither approach is particularly helpful. On a related note, it is the case that, in the US, SAT scores being equal, kids from poor families are much less likely to go to college than kids from well-to-do families, and this poor-rich divide is getting wider with lower wages at the bottom end of the coninuum and higher costs of college. So the culture of poverty is accelerating.

    Like

    • for better or worse the nascent empirical work on cognitive-biases would have predicted that
      “while empirical evidence can be sifted and conclusions drawn, many of the principals are going to remain immune to evidence” so we need new forms of exchange/organization that can take such realities/limits into account/strategy and work around such time/energy-sucks.

      Like

      • I agree, dmfant. This is one area where I disagree with Scott Bakker’s Blind Brain Theory: if I can identify blind spots and biases in my own reasoning and evaluation of evidence, then it’s possible for me to take corrective measures and to do better next time. If this marks me as a child of the Enlightenment then I’m fine with that, though I’m less fine with regarding the Enlightenment as part of my distinctive European heritage.

        Like

    • @ktismatics

      Your discussion of HBD is fair, and almost all of us would agree with you—the evidence is nuanced. If we sometimes take a triumphalist, essentializing tone in this arena, it’s simply out of exasperation at the forces who would deny HBD full stop and brand as immoral anyone who would study such diversity in the first place.

      Like

      • I can see your point, Schalach. If a movement calls itself neo-reactionary then it’s going to react. My longish set of comments on Nick’s Urban Futures blog (deleted now, I believe) revolved around Southern “Crackers” in America. I was making a case for cultural factors leading to higher birth rates and violence, drawing on historical evidence; Nick’s response was that, since cultural factors are the dominant explanation for group differences, the alternative genetic view is being under-represented in the public discourse and so should be considered first. So it’s a reaction against a perceived majoritarian POV suppressing the minority report. I can see that. Nonetheless, it’s hard for me to get around the sense that the self-identified minoritarians here are those who would seek to justify their positions at the top of the pecking order. At some point the mutual resentments do get in the way of civilized and informative discourse.

        Like

    • I agree. It will take a point by point in depth approach. Looks like I’ll need to center in on Mencius Moldbug who seems to be a King without a crown within their loosely tied assemble.

      Like

      • For a brief overview of Moldbug’s most interesting and original ideas (not likely to persuade, but a pointer), see here.

        I’ll post a reply about the sociology of Neoreaction at the weekend, since this area of political–idea-space is poorly understood even by most of its self-styled adherents.

        By the way, I did enjoy the sci-fi excerpt, and it looks like we at least have similar tastes in film and literature.

        Like

  5. Good stuff. Your initial scepticism is reasonable and normal, and with luck you will find your way through it. If you can make it through a few years of Moldbug you will find a few points clarified.

    I have a few minor quibbles with your summary – religion is not really part of what is new in neoreaction, though we find ourselves immediately close to pre-existing Christian traditionalists, perhaps even breathing life into something that was previously inward-looking. A much bigger issue is quoting me as a “member of [the] paleotribal council” and then not including my blog in your list.

    Like

  6. @ktismatics

    Nonetheless, it’s hard for me to get around the sense that the self-identified minoritarians here are those who would seek to justify their positions at the top of the pecking order.

    If you poke around the reacto-sphere, you’ll discover individuals scattered throughout the Western hierarchy: the working class is well represented in the ethno-nationalist sphere; several HBD bloggers are black; and I don’t see how middle managers, programmers, or recently-minted undergraduates could in any way be framed as existing at the top of the pecking order.

    The people writing these blogs are not senators. Often, they are the people forced to deal with the practical, on-the-ground realities of blank-slatist policies, or, more generally, policies designed to re-engineer society to the Left.

    Of course, I don’t think that you or everyone on the Left is at the top of the pecking order, either, and we sometimes mistakenly write as though, e.g., leftist academics have more power than they really do.

    Like

    • True, that we are in some ways in the same boat. Being neither an academic, nor someone who has much power in any sense in the pecking order I’ll totally agree that the neoliberal system in power is of now use. Being more of a libertarian socialist: the State is after all the enemy for me, rather than a friend, so in that sense the Cathedral metaphor is a point of order that we can all agree on: it is the system of self-perpetuating tautologies and repetition of the Same the both sides of the coin need to attack. But along with that we need to think long and hard on the Financial sector as well.

      Personally I was a Chef for over twenty years, a guy who worked so much (usually 70 or more hours a week) that I had little time for thought or anything else. Having been raised ultra-rightist I rebelled and went my own solitary way. More of a Bookchin fan, at least his early anarchistic tendencies, I came to books and philosophy, etc. later in life. Although such early influences of the nihilist spectrum held sway over me from Nietzsche, Stirner, etc. onward I ultimately have no deep affiliations with Progressive thought in the sense of ‘progress’: which is a overused term, sense many of us on the left see no sense in this idea of Progress in culture and society. It’s a dead end world. In some ways we on the ultra left are provocateurs and lambasters, which stirs the pot but gets us little traction.

      I will study in earnest the posts from the beginning of this Mencius Moldbug and begin to array a set of real arguments for and against the propositions he sets forth. That will of course, as in all things, take time… but will be a worthwhile exercise.

      Like

      • Great! thanks…

        Radical Centrism in his mode: “Such a diffuse political economy would not just give every day citizens a larger voice in determining affairs – it would allow them to “vote with their feet” and leave behind institutions that were not meeting their needs. Moreover, a decentralized political system is more difficult for a few vested interests to capture and turn to their own ends.”

        Seeing government as a Cafeteria of Services that seems to fall into the background as a sort of assembly line tool system that serves up public needs. A nose dive for the great bureaucrats who serve neither their Masters nor the citizens: that would be good… But in such a decentralized State where politicians are more like Waiters and Waitresses serving up the perfect meal to their state’s constituents who will be the Master Chef supplying the structure and oil to grease the system? Getting rid of the lobbying and media moguls would be a start… the money sliding around sideways into and between Corporations and State has always been the issue, as well as that great mythic entity: the Federal Reserve.

        But he’s write that we need to shake up the institutions, they stabilize power relations, so to change the way power is channeled one needs new and different institutions.

        Too much to think through for a comment… but worth a gander… thanks for the link!

        Of course he links off to a lot more meat …

        Like

      • Track-backs on my site led me here. An interesting discussion. I find it curious that so many neo-reactionarish folks link my stuff around, for I am far from them. (Though I do follow HBD chick, impressed with her historical knowledge as I am. She always seems to find the best links).

        My fore-bearers were liberal – or perhaps better said, republican. Tocqueville holds the shining bough in my political thought; the silver medal goes to Mr. Madison. Power the enemy, civil society the savior. The goal independence and equality. That last one is glaringly against neo-reactionis thoughtt. (Though my conception of equality might differ from some; I support the definition provided by Christopher Lasch:

        “The enlightenment got it backward, it is citizenship that confers equality, not equality that confers citizenship. Sameness is not equality, and “political equality, therefore, is the very opposite of equality before death” Ardent says, “… or of equality before God.” Political equality – citizenship – equalizes people who are otherwise unequal in their capacities, and the universalization of citizenship therefore has to be accompanied not only by formal training in the civi arts but by measures designed to assure the broadest distribution of economic and political responsibility.”

        (Christopher Lasch, Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, (New York: 1995) p.88. )

        The ideal is something not too far from 19 century antebellum America. In this day in age Americans were both tied to their communities but independent of them. They were especially independent of government structures. Back in those days the government that had the greatest affect on men’s lives was the local, followed by the state, and finally the federal level. Those in which one man could have the most impact were the ones which in turn impacted him the most – and if he did not like things, it was very easy for him to pack up and leave. Which happened often. (Extraordinary mobility for a country before the growth revolution.) Government was a tool to be used (and only when other tools failed), not a cafeteria of factory que line where goods and services were received. In my view decentralization helps transform spectators into participants, subjects into citizens. People do not govern unless they have to.

        That is part of why I favor decentralization. The other is the dreaded Institutional imperative. The following post is a good introduction:

        Institutions, Instruments, and the Innovators Dilemma

        The first few paragraphs of On Survivalism” also may be useful for understanding the thrust of what I advocate.

        In any case, your interest in these ideas is appreciated. The best to you and the other commentators here.

        Like

      • What’s interesting for me is most of this research is infiltrating my sci-fi stories and a satiric novel that I’m writing in a dystopic vein: a YA novel in fact. Your site was pointed out by, as you say, some of the reacts here in the comments as exemplary. I’ll be spending my time… so much to actually work through…

        Like

      • Track-backs on my site led me here. An interesting discussion. I find it curious that so many neo-reactionarish folks link my stuff around, for I am far from them. (Though I do follow HBD chick, impressed with her historical knowledge as I am. She always seems to find the best links).

        My fore-bearers were liberal – or perhaps better said, republican. Tocqueville holds the shining bough in my political thought; the silver medal goes to Mr. Madison. Power the enemy, civil society the savior. The goal independence and equality. That last one is glaringly not in line with the neo-reactionist. (Though my conception of equality might differ from some; I support the definition provided by Christopher Lasch:

        “The enlightenment got it backward, it is citizenship that confers equality, not equality that confers citizenship. Sameness is not equality, and “political equality, therefore, is the very opposite of equality before death” Ardent says, “… or of equality before God.” Political equality – citizenship – equalizes people who are otherwise unequal in their capacities, and the universalization of citizenship therefore has to be accompanied not only by formal training in the civi arts but by measures designed to assure the broadest distribution of economic and political responsibility.”

        (Christopher Lasch, Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, (New York: 1995) p.88. )

        The ideal is something not too far from 19 century antebellum America. In this day in age Americans were both tied to their communities but independent of them. They were especially independent of government structures. Back in those days the government that had the greatest affect on men’s lives was the local, followed by the state, and finally the federal level. Those in which one man could have the most impact were the ones which in turn impacted him the most – and if he did not like things, it was very easy for him to pack up and leave. Which happened often. (Extraordinary mobility for a country before the growth revolution.) Government was a tool to be used (and only when other tools failed), not a cafeteria of factory que line where goods and services were received. In my view decentralization helps transform spectators into participants, subjects into citizens. People do not govern unless they have to.

        That is part of why I favor decentralization. The other is the dreaded Institutional imperative. The following post is a good introduction:

        Institutions, Instruments, and the Innovators Dilemma

        The first few paragraphs of On Survivalism” also may be useful for understanding the thrust of what I advocate.

        In any case, your interest in these ideas is appreciated. The best to you and the other commentators here.

        Like

  7. Neoreaction is a pack of wolves, half of which are wearing sheep’s clothing and the other half of which are wearing little signs saying “Hello I am a wolf, you gonna do something about it you dumb sheep?”

    Like

  8. @Scharlach

    No doubt many of the Scots-Irish Crackers regarded themselves as genetically and culturally fit to rise above their low station in Southern society, their efforts directed less at usurping the unreachable English aristocracy than at prevailing over the Africans and Indians with whom they competed directly for the leftovers.

    To be clearer, I presume that most neo-reactionaries believe that on their merits they deserve to be seated in the good seats, and that if they make the right alliances then together they can rise. In contrast, those who don’t have the right stuff would naturally fall to the lower niches they are best suited to occupy if they weren’t being artificially propped up by leftist policies. A stratified society would result in which the meritocracy gain control most of the power and money, with their progeny rightfully inheriting privilege by virtue of their combined genetic and cultural superiority. Meanwhile those lower in the arena are doing what they’re best suited for: doing work to support the overall society that the skyboxers are overqualified for and that they’d prefer not to do. The lower-rung people too will form a self-perpetuating society that genetically and culturally fits them for menial and subservient positions in the larger society, working contentedly for the rich and powerful elite. And if some of them through merit or shrewd alliances or intermarriage with genetically superior stock manage to rise in the hierarchy, that’s fine too.

    Is that a fair albeit non-nuanced summary?

    Like

    • In some ways the transhumanist H++ is another version of eugenics updated for the cybergovs. Elitism seems to have always been there in the background, whether right or left. Mike Davis in his Evil Paradises along with others have begun documenting the new slavery and the Master Enclaves of this Plutocratic Meritocracy. Outside the law, these enclaves for the rich move within their global domes, their caged amusement parks like decadent children whose only dream is a fashionably copy of the latest snowscape in their interior mountain paradises. (But, seriously, it’s not a Ballardian nightmare, is it?)

      Like

    • Is that a fair albeit non-nuanced summary?

      I think the mind lobotomized by leftism cannot explain any natural human relationship outside of the hermeneutic of power and exploitation. Reactionaries are not as interested in seizing the reigns of power so much as in cutting them and being free to order their lives according to their own natural particularities.

      Like

      • So, to mix liquidity metaphors, left to their own devices the cream naturally rises to the top whereas the dregs naturally sink to the bottom? And there is no force needed to compel the dregs to do menial labor because that’s what their natural proclivities lead them to do anyway?

        Like

      • From a recent post on your blog: “Recognizing sex differences plays a significant role in the development of humane culture which, on net, benefits all societies. Traditional sex roles are therefore intended by nature, or nature’s god, or both to foster the common good.” Is this too a core component of neo-reactionary human biodiversity?

        Like

      • @ktismatics:

        Yes sex differences are at least as important to HBD as race differences. Your point?

        Re: “Lobotomized by leftism”. Perhaps another name is more apposite. But I don’t know what to call a hermeneutic that fundamentally sees all social status, all social order as zero-sum power politics. Humans did not spend the last 6,004 to 250,000 odd years developing maladaptive cultures. The maladaptive ones are all dead… those that remain must be somewhere near a local optimum.

        Libertarianism is a principle that works well for high functioning people, but unfortunately half of all people are below average. I think reactionary prescriptions end up looking a lot like libertarian ones, even if for entirely different reasons.
        u

        Like

      • @nickbsteves

        You say: “Libertarianism is a principle that works well for high functioning people, but unfortunately half of all people are below average.”

        Are there stats on this, or is this a subjective estimation based on? Why just high functioning? What is the standard or criteria of judgment for “half of all people are below average”?

        Just curious….

        I mean even the libertarian of the right, Murray Rothbard said this of Libertarianism: “the potential appeal of libertarianism is a multiclass appeal; it is an appeal that cuts across race, occupation, economic class, and the generations; any and all people not directly in the ruling elite are potentially receptive to our message. Every person or group that values its liberty or prosperity is a potential adherent to the libertarian creed.”

        Rothbard, Murray N. (2010-05-23). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 5540-5543). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.

        Another libertarian, Tom G. Palmer remarked: “Some self-styled libertarians think that the most important thing is, at all costs, to be radical, although what they identify as “radical” most people would identify as deliberate alienation of potential allies. I choose my comrades from among those who are willing to work to realize freedom, regardless of whether we would end up at the same point were all our goals to be realized, not from those who are content merely to fantasize about freedom and who seek to remain “big fish” (actually, more like goldfish) in small ponds. I would rather be a small fish in a great sea of liberty.”

        Tom G. Palmer. Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice (Kindle Locations 150-153). Kindle Edition.

        All I’d add would be the sense of ‘justice’ be calibrated into the equation… and, even, that loaded word, just like ‘liberty’ can be twisted into dark channels. So we have to dig deeper and fight harder for just what those two concepts mean in our time: to what purpose – what ethical reasoning’s and underpinnings. And, obviously Law must be framed in some more equitable way than it has been for a few hundred years. too. And, I haven’t even shed light on left libertarianism or socialist anarchists or whatever term is the going brokerage of the day…

        Like

  9. I’m curious as to which you regard as the strongest argument in support of traditional sex differences: cultural tradition, your Catholic faith, or empirical evidence. Certainly there’s no question that Catholicism has historically and Biblically supported the premise that males have authority over females. And certainly traditional sex roles got that way through the perpetuation of tradition. I’m not at all persuaded that societies with rigid sex role differences are more successful than societies with more androgynous sex roles. If religion and tradition trump empirical evidence, then the discussion ends there on sex roles.

    However, on your post you justify sex role differences at least in part on the basis of science. If you’re like Scharlach then you’d probably agree that the science is not nearly as clear-cut as your summary implies. E.g., are males better than females at math? It’s true that on the math SAT test males have a higher average scores and a higher percentage of high scores than do females. However, SAT scores and high school math grades are equally predictive of success in college math classes, and on that count girls do better than boys. Females and males perform equally well in college math classes. And females now earn half of all math bachelor’s degrees in the US. You suggest that, based on average sex differences, you would expect that a woman is more likely than a man to be a nurse. How about a doctor then? In 1970 something like 7% of physicians were female; now more than half of med students are female. In general, sex roles in the US have gotten a lot fuzzier, a lot more egalitarian, over the past 40 years. Do you regard this shift as symptomatic of a decline in Western culture? Even if you do, the biological arguments supporting traditional sex roles aren’t nearly as compelling as they might have been a generation ago.

    Like

    • If you read carefully you will see that I am not advocating some sort of Sexual Aparheid. In outlining the reactionary consensus, I am simply noting that a) sex differences are natural; which implies b) sexes will on average have different strengths, weaknesses, and roles; which implies c) attempts to ignore or eliminate natural distinctions and outcomes are at least foolish, and almost certainly counterproductive to group adaptive fitness. If I must spell it out: EO/AA should not exist.

      Sure more women than ever are pursuing medicine… many (most?) at the expense of their own long-term happiness, i.e., what nature or nature’s god or both spent several millions preparing them to do, and certainly at the expense of high IQ fertility. Well, at least there’s always cats.

      Like

      • Well you’re just repeating your original position rather than responding to the evidence i’ve presented, so I guess we’ll leave it at that. I have no idea the basis on which you conclude that women pursue medicine “at the expense of their long-term happiness,” so I’ll assume this is a religious or cultural assertion rather than an empirical one. I have no idea whether women doctors forego having children, but the nature of their profession certainly makes it more possible for them to have a part-time practice than would be the case in many other jobs. But it is an interesting HBD point that more highly educated women in our society on average have fewer children. I suspect this is true whether they work or not, but I don’t have the data at hand. It is an empirical question though.

        Like

      • You don’t really mean to imply that differences between the sexes in aptitudes, weaknesses, and outcomes is subject to empirical doubt, do you? Since that it is all I happen to claim, I don’t think I’m seeing a rebuttal here.

        Evidence? What evidence? Since I did not cite statistics but what everyone already knows, it cannot be argued with statistics, and certainly not hand-picked ones of dubious probity (more women are going to college, more people are going to college, it doesn’t turn out well for a lot of them… especially the below average ones). If you want statistics, see the HBD bloggers: Chateau Heartiste, Steve Salier, Audacious Epigone, HBD Chick, and everyone on their blog roll. They’ll flood with you statistics, evo-psych and sociology papers. That ought to keep you busy for a year or so… and then maybe you’ll have earned the right to wave some paltry statistics around…

        Apropos of your question: AE has a partial answer.

        Like

  10. “What is the standard or criteria of judgment for ‘half of all people are below average’?”
    — On reflection, you might not want to pick this ‘problem’ for your principle battlefield.

    Like

    • And, I think, before I leap into the fire again I need to read through Mencius Moldbug a great deal to grasp the structure and underpinnings of this ideological stance. Obviously I enjoyed your Thirst for Annihilation and see some valid aspects to your non-dialectical materialism or I’d not be contesting aspects of your decisions toward this neo-reactionary game-theoretics. So if Mencius is the typical case of the neoreactionary intellectual, and basic mouthpiece of its ideological voice I’ll have to spend some time working through his writings to truly contest this with any depth.

      I find you to be a worthy opponent, your conceptual rigor was very strong in both Thirst for Annihilation and the collected essays from earlier blog or related posts that Brassier and Mackay collected in Fanged Noumena. I’m not even sure you actually believe in you game, but what’s interesting is that for you like Nietzsche and his progeny you use it as a play of forces, a site to hash out the raw nerves of our particular moment.

      Like

  11. Nietzsche, of course, outdoes all in clarity and insight from his perch in the future-passed:

    “The instinct that drives them away from modern reality is unassailable — what do we care that they have chosen a retrograde short cut! The essential thing about them is not that they want to go ‘back’: but rather, that they want to get — away. A bit more strength, lightness, courage, artistry: and they would want to get up and out — and not go back!” (Beyond Good and Evil)

    It’s far more about the future than the past. If I read (scan) NL incorrectly (it’s the only way to fly), the theonomist and ethnic nationalist legs of the trichotomy are structural props made up of useful (and entertaining and very intelligent) idiots (I speak as an idiot, too, of course; we’re all idiots in the face of the future, though as the techno-futurist edge of neoreaction would seem to have it, only a few of us are useful) whose function is to help dissolve the Cathedral in order to liberate the future (singularity, post-human AI, cybernetic colonization of inner & outer spaces via techno-commercialism and intermediate nano-states in place of a static nanny state that accelerate by way of exit-and-patchwork competition the development of what’s next).

    Anyway, that’s my quick idiot-take based on entirely inadequate surfing, scanning, and deeply shallow thought(lessness).

    (That this all may be thought to begin and end with one man–a worker–beating an old nag in the street and another man (an intellectual aristocrat) having a mental breakdown in the face of mere (not heroic) cruelty is beside the point (in the quantum sense as one might be “beside oneself” in breakdown, exit stage right).)

    (Is the Dark Enlightenment really that dark? It seems an awfully hopeful–excited about the future!–thing. We can get a lot darker, can’t we?)

    #mightjustbecrazyenoughtowork #nah

    Like

    • Interestingly, the “useful idiots” remark appears at the end of the cross-linked Outside-In thread, where commenter Nicholas MacDonald inserts a wedge in the new reaction alliance:

      “It has struck me from the beginning that there is an unbridgeable fissure between the ethnic/nationalist/religious neoreaction and the cosmopolitan/technocratic/transhumanist neoreaction… Very different from the HBD groupies, who strike me as the sort who could be found beating Mexican immigrants with tire irons if they could get away with it… The ethno/national and religious wings are just the useful idiots of neoreaction, which is actually driven by the techno-libertarian-cosmopolitan agenda.”

      In response “admin” starts tiptoeing in that direction, implying that the ethnic/religious reaction represents a social class that’s different from the cosmo-techno intellectual elite of the movement.

      Like

      • What looks thuggish from one perspective, feels inarticulately pissed off from another. Class lenses can be cognitively confining. Couldn’t it be that simple? (I realize that baroque conspiracy theory is more fun.)

        Like

      • Sure. I too feel inarticulately pissed off quite often, constrained and frustrated. Attempting to articulate, to attribute causality for, to trace possible trajectories away from pissed-offedness: these can become spaces of awareness, maybe even (shaky, unstable) platforms for taking concerted action, individually and collectively.

        Like

  12. Pingback: The Neoreactionary Impulse: Who is Mencius Moldbug? | noir realism

  13. Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  14. Pingback: Lecturas de la semana | Critical Hit

  15. “The Age of Reason” should have been titled the “The Age of blindness” Obviously all men are not created equal, nor women equal to men.

    Zimbabwe shows us that the superior should rule the inferior, just as modern America shows us that men should rule women.

    Like

  16. Pingback: Public vs. insider knowledge | Suspiria de Profundis

  17. Pingback: On Slavery | The Reactivity Place

  18. Pingback: Nick Land – An Experiment in Inhumanism

  19. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Neoreactionaries tend to the trollish, and do not get to the heart of the matter: the Golden Rule itself is questionable. Abortion is killing the unborn, but if you don’t kill your unborn, you get large families and you’ll have to invade someone else’s living space, which is also at odds with the Golden Rule.
    Western Civilization is Christianity, Christianity is the Golden Rule. So Western Civilization is done for.

    Like

  20. Alright, I’ll see if I can break it down for you so that you can understand the wisdom of it.

    The first thing is, we have some severe problems in the west, and I’ll list them here.

    1. We have low birthrates which are below replenishment level.
    2. Male-female relations are in an unprecedented poor state.
    3. Our countries are being flooded with hostile 3rd worlders, and we have no way of stopping it. These 3rd worlders are able to live off our tax money, and receive a greater stipend from the government with each child they have.
    4. If current trends continue, western Europe will become Islamic, and the US will become a suburb of Mexico. It is of no benefit for us to live as minorities among such people.
    5. We live in a time of unprecedented government growth and overreach, which is expensive for the tax payer and restrictive on the economy.
    6. Freedom of speech, religion, and association are being curtailed across the west in the name of tolerance and diversity.

    Democracy is not the answer:

    Democracy is predicated upon two assumptions which can never be proven correct; the belief that those who tally the votes do so honestly, and the belief that everyone is morally and intellectually qualified to make sound decisions.

    The first assumption is not likely to be true, and the second assumption is demonstrably false.

    Under the best of circumstances, Democracy is mob rule, or tyranny of the majority. Why do other people get to vote money out of my pockets and into theirs? This is tantamount to theft by surrogate, and should not be allowed in a civilized society.

    So what is the answer?

    History has shown us that monarchy is the cheapest form of government for the taxpayer, and it is also more insulated from lobbying and demagoguery.

    The only way to truly control the government is to have a small government which sees it’s interests as being positively connected with the interests of the people it governs. With our modern democracies this is clearly not the case, as they are continually trying to present white people, men, wealthy people, and Christians as the bogeyman in order to garner votes from people who contribute nothing to our society and culture.

    We recognize that intelligence is at least as much a product of genetics as it is of a person’s upbringing and environment. Therefore, the king will be one of the most intelligent specimens, and I would go a step further by requiring him to only marry an intelligent woman. The king will have traditional responsibilities as well, which will include going to war with the troops, if there is a war.

    We will abolish public education and restore Christianity, which will restore our cultural health and vitality (yes, I’m from the religious wing). With Christianity restored, we will also restore traditional gender roles and relationships. We will revitalize marriage, and our birthrates will return to a healthy level.

    It doesn’t matter that there are three different strains of neoreactionary thought, because we on the right are not concerned with forcing everyone to go along with us, as the left is, nor are we interested in large empires or world government. Our philosophy hinges more upon determining how we can do what we want where we are, and how others can do what they want where they are.

    Like

    • Sounds more like your building a new Imperial World with Christianity (or your form of it) as enthroned ruler, thereby excluding all other forms of religious, social, or any other philosophical outlook from the imperium. You say your not forcing everyone to get along, yet you want to impose a new educational regime on all those others who may disagree with you? Hmm…

      Like

      • Alright, let me break it down further.

        First of all, I am not imposing anything, what I would like to do is start with secession, and then work to scale back the role and influence of government.

        I didn’t say I was going to determine any curriculum, education will be privatized, and everyone will be free to have as much or as little as they want. There will be no public education, which is nothing but a brainwashing tool of the state.

        An Empire is many different nations or groups under one regime, what I am talking about is the breakup of Empires into smaller more homogenous regions. I’m interested in having my own free space, and largely unconcerned with what the rest of the world is doing. As long as other people are leaving me alone, I have no reason to not leave them alone.

        I shouldn’t have to pay money so that another country’s citizens can lay on their backs and breed. shouldn’t have to pay for anyone else’s kids, period.

        People should not be able to steal my money through proxy.

        I should not have to pay money to groups that hate me.

        I should not have to donate money to “art” museums which contain “art” which I find worthless or offensive. Why is my money being appropriated to give public space to things that look like a 2 year old’s splatter painting? Or things like pisschrist, which I find both disgusting and blasphemous. If other people want to do these things, then fine, but I have the right to be excluded from it on every level. If your junk isn’t good enough to survive on it’s own merit, then it’s probably not good for anything.

        Like

      • You say: ” I’m interested in having my own free space, and largely unconcerned with what the rest of the world is doing. As long as other people are leaving me alone, I have no reason to not leave them alone. ”

        The difficulty in this is that even if you secede… whatever that entails… you will always be connected to the rest of the planet whether you will or not. Even if you built the great wall of ? against the rest of the world. There would be those on the other side – as is the case of most human aggressivity, who would seek to tear the fence down. The idea of isolationism was part of the early conservatives in the 20’s and 30’s or even before that during the pre WWI years. No one bought into it then, what makes you think it would succeed now? Even the most adamant libertarian capitalist or libertarian socialist seek the same, but they’ve yet to accomplish such a strategy.

        Let’s face it humanity is at war with itself. There will be the usual endless bloodbaths to come… as there has been in the past. Do we ever learn? Do we ever build systems that include and offer equitable freedom for all. The U.S. was founded as a Republic, not a democracy… the founders realized a lot more about the vast majority than we seem willing to buy into. Instead we’ve allowed the republic to become something else: a for of passive fascism of the economic experts who rule Washington. Politics is not longer, economics has become the new opium of the masses, and the media-moghuls the preachers who control the flow of propaganda that keeps the phantasms of prosperity alive.

        There can be no ‘free space’ … nothing is free anymore. What your speaking of is actually been tried: Civil-War. Where will that actually get you? Have you really thought through the years of violence and most likely the destruction of yourself, your family, and all your loved ones?

        Like

      • Well first of all, we no longer have a Republic. In a Republic there is rule of law, which cannot be changed, and which governs the government. What we have now is demagoguery and rule by fiat.

        The fact that the union beat the south has nothing to do with whether or not what they did was morally justified or if how the matter concluded was the best outcome. That sort of “might makes right” mentality is part of the problem, and is ultimately self defeating for the left.

        The fact is that the US will break up, it’s inevitable just as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up. Balkanization is natural, Empires are not. People naturally cleave to those who are like them and shun those who are radically different.

        It is no longer a matter of IF the US will break up but HOW and WHEN. I went to a diverse high school, and one thing I noticed was that the Mexicans sat with Mexicans, the blacks sat with blacks, the whites sat with whites, the Muslims sat with Muslims, the Asians sat with Asians, and the Indians were so few in number that they either had to go with whites or Asians. Of course there were a few exceptions across the board, but this was the general rule. During classes the kids were forced together, but during their freetime they separated themselves. As the US becomes more pluralistic it will become a chaotic patchwork, and more difficult for the USG to govern. The USG will attempt to become more draconian in order to keep the peace, but they will eventually run out of a way to pay the army and law enforcement, at which time they will lose their authority and different groups will elect local governments.

        Now, we can do this the hard way or the easy way. If we do it the easy way the government will let us go now, while we still have some semblance of traditional American civilization left. If we do it the hard way, the government will eventually paint itself into a corner and become impotent.

        One thing we can learn from the past is that empires don’t work. Small scale monarchies do. The neoreactionary movement IS a result of learning from the past.

        Whether the country breaks up now or later, we need to be ready to establish our own systems, and we can start by laying the philosophical groundwork right now.

        Concerning the borders, and people trying to move across them. If we have no welfare and end birthright citizenship, as well as voting, then the bulk of the immigrants we are getting right now would have no reason to come. If by some chance people try to come and invade against our will, then that is why we have armies and walls. We don’t have armies to wage abstract and pointless wars overseas, but to protect our homeland. Spain has adopted an instant pushback policy with African and Muslim immigrants that try to climb the fence into the Spanish holdings in North Africa. They literally just beat them back. That is a simple and rational way of dealing with unwanted intruders. If that is not enough we can also shoot the intruders. I would deport all illegals. I would fortify the border. If by chance some illegals manage to sneak back in, in spite of the superior enforcement, I would beat them and set them back across the border.

        Trade is fine. Invasion is not. It seems that you are just trying to attack our system in an attempt to defend the imperial and multiculturalist system. Our system has been proven to work, while the imperial system is a demonstrable failure.

        Like

      • That we can agree to disagree is fine with me. I probably will not convince of my angle, as you of yours. Obviously for me the notion of a small monarchy is not my path. And as the old adage goes: the future is not written, yet the attractors that seem to come from the future seem to portent a world of strife rather than peace. So be it. I do not speak of ‘our’ or ‘we’ but rather of my own truths. Even Nick Land would not presume to speak for ‘our system’. Even your reactionary front is divided as to what it wants from the many blogs I visit. So nothing is set in stone. You’re voicing your vision, so why not just state it that way.

        Either way, it is nothing I’ll ever be convinced of… period. Yet, I allow you to voice it here on my site. I’m not a exclusionary creature except when it comes to hate. You seem to believe in your ideas and cause, so who am I too tell you differently. I think if you have seen and read the various articles on my site that you know where I stand. So let’s leave it at that.

        Like

      • I definitely agree that things are going to get worse, the question is what can we do to ameliorate it.

        There is a difference between different neoractionaries, and sometimes I dip back into anarchocapitalism from time to time, which is what I used to be. But whether we’re neoreactionaries, nationalists, libertarians, or anarchists, there is one them/urge which unites everyone on the right. It is our overriding urge which can be summed up in three words: “leave me alone.”

        All the various permutations of right wing thought are all different paths toward that end goal of being left alone by others.

        We don’t have to agree on everything, provided that no one is forced to do anything against their will. For example, if I’m in a reactionary state, and I’m bordered by an anarchist state on one side, and a nationalist state on another side, then provided that all of us stick to pour principles there won’t be any basis for conflict between us. We will all mutually leave eachother alone.

        Like

      • Obviously many on the left spectrum believe the same thing: “leave me alone”. Yet, this notion in itself seems erroneous, at least to me. For the simple reason … none of us is “alone”. Even if you created an exit world into which your form of neoreactionary world-view could come about I believe you’d discover that as Emerson once said: “the shadow is with you still”. Where there are two are more gathered there is strife, disagreement, war… and, realistically, you could not in this planet find a specific spot that would hold all the necessary resources – food, minerals, etc. nor the machines necessary to sustain such a world for long. Simply put … within a generation you’d have the same issue as both nomadic societies and agricultural societies of the past discovered: birth, multiplication of the species, the need for more resources than you can supply to feed or clothe your existing population. And, this doesn’t even begin to entail the very simple fact that in each new generation you’ll have the usual younger generation rebels who will once again start the whole thing over battling against the very organization of social relations that you hold so dear.

        I know… I know… you will probably have a list of litanies about what you’d do to curtail or change this situation… but one thing you’ll never curtail – unless you decide to use drugs, technology or some other form of coercion – and, that is people’s uncanny need to be free, and free of their parents authority, etc. Look at history… the only time peace has arisen is because of unfreedom, not freedom. It was an imposed peace whether in ancient tribal societies or the nomad/agricultural, or the guild worlds of Meideval and the industrial … or our post-modern age of complacency and mediatainment passivity.

        Even the very notion of a monarchy or soveringnty is based on forms of power, judgement, and control. Whether as in the ancient biblical sense – as in King Solomon who was both judge and jury, etc. Or in the cameralist sense. One is always bound to certain forms of coercion which entail a modicum of unfreedom.

        Even in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights we see the notion of a defense not of freedom, but from the coercion of the State. In our time we’re seeing the 52 states slowly losing their own bit of sovereignty as the Federal Government chomps away year by year at the various aspects of state freedom. Ultimately there will come a time when it will probably just gobble it all up and do away with all protections. And, the sad thing, most of its citizens will be so involved with their narcissistic meditainment reality lives that they’ll never know that it happened.

        Like

      • I’m not interested in curtailing anyone’s freedom. Maybe you have heard of the non-aggression principle? The idea behind it is that the initiation of force is wrong. Jesus also promoted this principle as did Confucius. Anarcho-capitalists call it volunteerist. Meaning, all interactions are voluntary, and the initiation of force is wrong.

        Now, I drifted away from anarchy because it’s a fact that not everyone is intellectually or morally capable of living by the non-aggression principle (eventually I will do an entry detailing the logic behind my ideological migration). We can defend ourselves from aggressors on the small scale by arming ourselves, but when it comes to large scale aggression we need an army. Now, whether this can be a national army directed by a central authority, or whether this can be thoroughly private is up for debate, and this is why I tend to vacillate between anarchy and neoreactionaryism.

        If we MUST have a government we want it to be as small as possible, both for cost of maintenance, and because a smaller government is easier to dispose of should it become necessary.

        Yes, the Federal government is way out of bounds and it’s gobbling up our freedoms, of course, it was demotic politics that enabled them to garner so much unconstitutional power. Wouldn’t it be better if every state became a separate country? That would be a start, or perhaps we could start by breaking the US Empire into three or four states.

        Like

      • My problem with all forms of voluntarism is that they stink of irreality… when I look around me all I see is power relations in one form are another. The pipe-dream of a voluntarist society seems to be Utopian at best, and actually an open door for those psychopathic individuals to waltz right in and manipulate it to their own mad designs.

        It’s a nice idea, just not realistic; nor, even… ah, was about to say, materialist… but that again would shift me into another digression on what do I mean by materialism: scientific naturalism (Physicalism), Marxists (historical materialism), Lacan-Zizek-Badiou (Dialectical and immaterial materialism)…

        As you can see thought is in a state of chaos even in the idealist/realist debates … as ever…

        Not to mention how you would get a group of people to agree on the boundaries of this volunteerism… oh my… sorry, I know it’s serious, but dam … humans are a vicious lot when it comes to agreeing on things voluntary or not.

        Do I have an answer: of course not… I have way too many unanswered questions, and so far what I’ve discovered is ignorance is the only monarch around.

        Like

      • I agree it’s most likely not possible, which is why I advocate for a monarchy, which is the smallest form of government short of no government at all.

        There will be less friction if countries are smaller, and the people the people that make them up are relatively similar, which is why we get some people advocating for similarity based on religion, race, or economics. That’s the debate that’s going on. Some people insist that all three must be in place. At the very least there needs to be ideological similarity.

        We have seen enough to know that Democracy and multiculturalism are failures. Democracy inevitably leads to demagoguery and socialism. There are some serious problems with socialism. Aside form the fact that it lends itself to dysgenics and classism, you also must inevitably run out of other people’s wealth to redistribute. I’ve had similar discussions with neo-nazis, who want to have a 100% white ethnostate, while glossing over the fact that all the groundwork for multiculturalism, feminism, and socialism was all firmly in place when we still had the majority by 90% or more in the US and western Europe. I believe that the best solution lies with restoring monarchy and Christianity. Of course not everyone is going to be on board with that, but that is why we need to have small ideological homogenous states rather than large multicultural empires.

        If you don’t want monarchy, small states, or less government, then what is your solution to the problems of strife, discord, and massive government overreach which you have pointed out?

        Like

      • I assume you’ve read Nick Land’s A Thirst For Annihilation? The human species is a disease, or dis – eased, a mistake, a burp in the conflictual relations of the universal grid, and will like the dinosaur sooner or later go extinct… so why not give it a push…

        I mean isn’t this whole dance with posthumanism, transhumanism, singularity, et. al… just another way of stating Nietzsche’s thesis of the Ubermensch – which in his intent was not some self-transcension of the human, but rather its total obliteration and negation by other means. So do you think our progeny, our quantum children will be able to do a better job? I believe the singularity is not some formidable transformation in technology, but rather the implosion of the human into its inhuman core: the birth-pangs of technicity, of the age of disconnection in David Roden’s sense (see Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human). The human species has had its time, but it’s time is over… time to clear the path toward something else … alterity and aporia unbounded.

        Even in your attempt to save some modicum of order and humanity through fractional islands of reactionary bliss will not stop what is coming at us.

        In this sense like my friend R. Scott Bakker keeps reminding me: the Semantic Apocalypse happened already… but we keep shoring up the vestiges of the human project against the floodgates of futurity. Am I a pessimist, a nihilist, or am I something new… something else beyond either of those outmoded forms of implosion?

        Like

      • So you’re a nihilist then. Well, if you really wanted to give it a push you would start by taking yourself out. But most of the people who claim they want humanity to go extinct are not willing to start with themselves, which mystifies me.

        I have a Biblical world view, and I believe the answer to the human condition can be found there. Without us, this world serves no purpose.

        I didn’t stumble upon neoreactionaryism and decide to be on the. It’s just that I happen to fit the profile for the religious corner all of my own. So my views are mainly a result of independent efforts to generate a solution. I converged with these people on my own after leaving anarchy, and fits me like a glove for the most part.

        Like

      • Of course you missed the whole point… no, I’m not a nihilist… but since you assumed it, you have filled in the gaps with your own biblical world-view which assumes its own coordinates. I love it when someone decides at some point to sit in judgment as you are, and takes the moral high-ground as if it meant anything at all. Since I’m neither a pessimist nor nihilist … do I need a name for it… this something that has no name? You seem so self-satisfied in your own illusions and communal fantasias, why should I be the one to explode your bubble. Have fun in your world…

        Like

      • I asked you a question and I assumed that you were giving me a sincere answer. IT seemed like you were saying you wanted humanity to go extinct. Is that true or not, and if not then what did you really mean?

        Like

      • There was a time when I thought as you. Raised up in a Southern Baptist world, a staunch evangelical until the age of nineteen. Then I went to Viet Nam: this changed everything. In a world of death and napalm the last vestiges of my world-view came tumbling down. God vanished the scene like some dark thought in an abyss, and what was left was nothing more than this black pit of hate and despair. Then I spent years seeking answers: none came forward. Man’s knowledge as the preacher says is “vanity”. Nothing more. We are “vanity” nothing more. God and Devil alike are figures that humans cling too in desperation to explain the unexplainable. I do not castigate those who need beliefs. I at times wish I had them, too. But science, and my own experience have taught me that humans like all other animals are nothing exceptional. We are the unknown X even to ourselves. Oh sure I keep on plugging away at life. Why not? Why should I end it. I still have my fleshly pleasures. As for extinction: obviously I affirm the truth that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. Why should I think we shall escape this natural truth of the universe? One could of course deny the truth, deny that the sciences have such truths. But would that prolong the agony? Would that help you get along with yourself better, ease the pain and suffering of your life?

        I know, I know… for you there is this promise of heaven, of Jesus on the cross and resurrection, a second life, etc. Maybe your right. Problem for me… I no longer believe it, the awakening to death and pain in Viet Nam brought that tale crumbling down. I cannot return. So I as Beckett says: Keep on keeping on…

        Like

      • Well, I never had a Vietnam type experience, but I do know that those types of experiences can be a tipping point one way or another.

        I have also had my share of doubts, largely as a result of unanswered prayers. My main thing was that I wanted to get a job in my field/area of expertise/education, and after having gone back to school to better myself, I actually came out the worse for it. I’m still struggling, and I almost became a deist as a result of 3 years without making it into the job I wanted. I still haven’t made it now, but what got me back to the faith was the presence and focus of evil, especially in the elections where Obama was won. He basically campaigned on a moral inversion, and there has been such an adverse focus on Christianity, Israel, and traditional values that I was ultimately drawn back to a Biblical explanation to explain the animus.

        One of my best friends is from the Netherlands. He grew up atheist, and had no interest in Christianity. But as he went through the public education system there was such focus on ridiculing and undermining Christianity that he decided to check it out, and ultimately converted.

        Coming to science, my guess is that you are conflating science with evolution, which is really speculation based on a set of a priori assumptions. A lot of the animal species are extinct because of humans killing them off. I think all you need do is look for one animal species with a system or writing, or which has invented the wheel, or even learned how to use fire, and you’ll begin to see how humans are unique.

        If we ever discover sentient life on other worlds you might be able to make an argument against human uniqueness, provided that the aliens are similar to us or the same. But right now that’s all speculative and academic.

        Anyways, I don’t WANT you to kill yourself, and in general I don’t recommend that. Hopefully you will come back around.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s