I'm Distruzio, NSG's resident Eastern Orthodox Libertarian Royalist/Monarchist American. I've decided to take a break from my usual asshattery where I condescend Protestants as heretics and repudiate Democracy as immoral as well as my usual pro-Monarch pro-Anarchy spiel and discuss something that recently got some press here on NSG - neoreaction.
Now, I realize that there might be overlap between this thread and that thread but the reasoning behind a new thread about the same topic is that this thread is less an invitation for neoreactionaries to speak and more a comprehensive explanation of neoreaction itself verses reaction and how each philosophy approaches modern society. One thing we have to keep in mind is that "neoreactionary", like any and all ideological descriptors, is an umbrella term. It in no way accurately reflects all perspectives that fold into it or all individuals that adhere to it. There are racists and non-racists. There are monarchists and republicans. There are the intellectual and the ignorant. Over all, this thread will be a general venture. The discussion points I hope to bring up are; do you think neoreactionism has a leg to stand on and what do you think of the neoreactionary goal?
The greatest question I hope to ask is: What about neoreactionism do you disagree/agree with and why?
So... here we go:
What is neoreaction?
Neoreactionism is a political ideology that supports a traditionalist (reactionary) perspective on government, society, and ethnicity. Neoreactionaries oppose liberal democracy and egalitarianism. They support, instead, paleomonarchism (more absolutist/enlightened and less constitutional/elected) and patriarchy. Most are capitalists - so we see that their reaction seems to halt at economic perspectives. All in all, most neoreactionary literature I've read blames progressivism for a perceived downward trend in society - this trend being explained according to an increase in suicide rates, crime rates, government debt, household debt, time preference (I want my gold plated spinners on my diamond encrusted jetski NOW god damn it!), and a decrease in civic participation.
I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of each and every thing listed because, well, I want you to read my OP. If I lay out a wall of text with citations and graphs and all that jazz I might just contribute to the neoreactionary perception of an increase of suicide rates by causing your head to asplode. I love you reader. I don't want your head to asplode. So lets leave out all that filler, kay?
Suffice it to say that... even being a reactionary myself, I have to admit that society is not declining. At least not by those standards (if you want to look into that feel free but, otherwise, trust me - the neoreactionaries who use that argument as a point of argument are full of shit). Other standards, yes. Is contemporary society, by and large, becoming less religious? Yes. Is contemporary society, by and large, becoming more materialistic (i.e. I want all of the things because things and stuff!)? Yes. Is contemporary society, by and large, becoming more integrated and interdependent therefore leading to a decrease in self-sufficiency? Yes. From a reactionary standpoint (my own), this is a bad trend. It isn't a trend, however, that necessitates the position that SOCIETY WILL COLLAPSE!!!!1 ARGGHHHH!!111!! These actual societal trends aren't, necessarily, bad of themselves. They, more accurately, reflect an evolution of society - an inevitability. There is nothing to bemoan about this beyond personal preference. For myself, I'm rather religious. So how can I not see the decline in religion as a danger? Because I see society thriving despite the decline. So, for my part, I'd be better served by looking at how religion can remain viable in society. I don't begrudge society for evolving. I'd have to begrudge religion is it couldn't evolve.
So what's the point? What does neoraction hope to accomplish?
Essentially, the political aspirations of neoreaction (and all the verbosity of the most prolific of their writers and advocates) can be boiled down to the conviction that conservatism doesn't work. That's it. Hell, the progressives and liberals among you dear readers can agree with that. If you do, then congratulations! You're well on your way to being a neoreactionary! Ready to start being racist too? No? Well shit. I thought I had you. Back to brass tax, though... conservatism doesn't work. Conservatives are always attempting to maintain the status quo. It's only the reactionaries among us that want to undo programs and legislation. The GOP in American may be obstructionist right now, but it's hardly being reactionary. Sure sure, certain mouthbreathers in the Senate and House may be arguing for a repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act but, by and large, we all know that won't happen. SCOTUS weighed in. SCOTUS defended it. For whatever reason, for good or worse, the law stays. The GOP won't repeal it.
Moreover, neoreaction argues that conservatism fails in avoiding or preventing societal (economic) stagnation, egalitarian leveling, state centralization, economic fleecing, and all-encompassing tyranny. These are things that reactionaries agree with. Hell, we can love this.
So neoreaction hopes for a "restoration" of that which is approved. The basis of the "restoration" is, according to the reactionaries, premised according to a realistic approach to social issues.
Hierarchical realism: hierarchy is natural and absolutely essential to the proper functioning of any social structure;
Gender realism: differences between the genders exist and are not, necessarily, invaluable;
Race Realism: race and group differences exist are are not, necessarily, artificial though they be arbitrary;
Memetic realism: naturally arising adaptations to social realities represent legitimate local solutions to complex social problems;
Economic realism: the issuance of money has itself become a political weapon;
Federalist realism: national solutions are seldom one size fits all thus the right of secession must be secured;
Justice realism: horizontal social justice (not, necessarily, involving the police) is appropriate and right and is true justice;
Political realism: the most appropriate of any society should rule rather than lead;
Gender realism: differences between the genders exist and are not, necessarily, invaluable;
Race Realism: race and group differences exist are are not, necessarily, artificial though they be arbitrary;
Memetic realism: naturally arising adaptations to social realities represent legitimate local solutions to complex social problems;
Economic realism: the issuance of money has itself become a political weapon;
Federalist realism: national solutions are seldom one size fits all thus the right of secession must be secured;
Justice realism: horizontal social justice (not, necessarily, involving the police) is appropriate and right and is true justice;
Political realism: the most appropriate of any society should rule rather than lead;
"Realism" looks suspiciously like thinly veiled sexism, racism, political obstructionism, elitism, and... something about fiat currencies?
Yup. That's what it is. As a reactionary I can agree with the presumption that hierarchy, differences among the genders, differences among cultures (rather than races), and horizontal social justice can benefit society. I don't agree with neoreactionaries on their favorably opinions of racism, the institution of economic restrictions based upon gender, and opposition to fiat currencies. These things smell too much of conservatism which, if we recall, is something the neoreactionary thinks fails. So why reiterate failure?
Wait... you said that neoreaction bemoans the decline in civic participation?
Yes. I did. And their response to this is to advocate the dissolution of democracy.
Why monarchy?
The neoreactionary believes monarchy is betterer. Why? Because reasons. That's why! Seriously, though, it's because they group totalitarian regimes and democracies together in a word "demotist". They do this by defining the term in a way that includes any and all governments that profess legitimacy according to "rule in the name of the people". Thus any political structure in which power is legitimated this way becomes "demotist." We reactionaries also despise democracy but we don't use this tactic. It's fucking stupid, honestly. By that logic, all contemporary monarchies are also "demotist."
Even as a reactionary who despises democracy, I cannot support this logic. It's ridiculous. Making up a new work with convenient definition that includes any and all forms of government except those conveniently not included by fiat is a con. I agree with them that monarchy is superior to democracy but I cannot agree on the manner in which they make the argument because they, in describing demotism, say nothing at all.
What's this about the 'Cathedral'
I'll let Michael Anissimov, himself a prominent and prolific neoreactionary speak:
[The Cathedral is] the self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service…the Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil [...]
Government and social policy is manufactured in universities, first and foremost at Harvard, followed by Princeton, then Yale, then the other Ivies, Berkeley, and Stanford. As far as politics is concerned, institutions outside of these are pretty much insignificant. Memetic propagation is one-way — it is formulated in the schools and pumped outwards. The universities are not significantly influenced by the outside. The civil servants that make government decisions are either borrowed from universities or almost totally influenced by them. The official mouthpiece of this ideological group is The New York Times, which is the most influential publication in the world outside of the Bible.
Government and social policy is manufactured in universities, first and foremost at Harvard, followed by Princeton, then Yale, then the other Ivies, Berkeley, and Stanford. As far as politics is concerned, institutions outside of these are pretty much insignificant. Memetic propagation is one-way — it is formulated in the schools and pumped outwards. The universities are not significantly influenced by the outside. The civil servants that make government decisions are either borrowed from universities or almost totally influenced by them. The official mouthpiece of this ideological group is The New York Times, which is the most influential publication in the world outside of the Bible.
Sound like a conspiracy theory? It does, doesn't it? That's because it is a conspiracy theory. It's nuts.
So there you have it. Individual neoreactionaries wax philosophically on many issues - from how America should be run (a monarchy or a joint stock company) to how progressivism is poisoning American society, to blah blah blah. But what's your take, NSG? Have any input for my questions above?
My personal opinion about neoreactionism is to raise my eyebrow at it and take another drink. In the end, the neoreactionary sets off too many alarms to be considered an ally of any value. From their tendency to slut shame to their insistence that biological racism is a real thing, the conspiracies identify these people as less a "new reaction" against progressivism and more a strange complaint. What could motivate monarchical yearnings among American conservatives so much so that they not only consider conservatism a failure but also reject republicanism? After all, monarchy has no historical foundation here in America. There is no tradition of it here. An American reactionary would be better served preserving the American heritage of the Founding Fathers, constitutionalism, states’ rights, Jeffersonian individualism, etc etc (which is something I do while not denying that the Founding Fathers were traitors). I think the reason so many former conservatives react against progressivism in the way neoractionaries react is that conservatism has failed and, therefore, America needs the right people to maintain existing privilege (I have a strong suspicion that neoreactionaries are predominantly middle class white men). So much of their justification comes with the parenthetical assertion that these men are part of an elite - an unrecognized and unappreciated elite.
That's not reactionary. That's fascist. That's stalinist. That's objectivist. That's the elevation of an arbitrary and tragic fantasy hero of society - the neoreactionarist man.
That is my primary contention against neoreactionism. It's the same tired argument that, for all it's verbosity, manages to say nothing at all.
