Author Topic: Neoreaction  (Read 6895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Manager
  • .
  • Posts: 2963
« on: June 07, 2014, 01:03:47 PM »
Neoreaction represents an attempt to popularize anti-liberalism. It does this by trying to show the failure of egalitarianism and the need for a consequence-based control system.

Its strength is its weakness. While popularizing is a good goal, it can end up becoming little more than theory which runs in circles. The primary reason for this is the weakness of neoreaction, which is that it is duplicative:

  • Haidt's division of left/right makes more sense than third way associations.
  • Wolfeian status is a better explanation than Moldbug's "caste" system.
  • Houellebecq's existential attack on liberalism is more profound than tech-geek efficiency arguments.
  • Nietzsche's desire for efficacy is more sensible than freedom-oriented anti-liberal-freedom arguments.
  • Huxleyian/Evolan desire for tradition/sacred role makes more sense than a managed society.
  • Woodruff's "reverence" strikes closer to what people want from the transcendental.

The result is often too much "play-acting" where people write philosophy in order to participate in a theory, not in order to find results. In particular, recent neoreactionary texts have shown an outpouring of focus on (a) internal self-policing and (b) subdivisions of theory. This kind of self-referentialism marks systems in decline, not rising.

In particular, it makes sense that neoreaction look at the two attributes of healthy conservative revolt in already-thriving movements:

  • Results-based pragmatism.
  • An underlying sense of transcendental/existential reasoning.

For more information and sources, see the internal discussion for Neoreactionaries thread.