The following is a brief breakdown of what I consider to be the values of neoreaction. Since it is an intellectual movement without anything approaching an intellectual canon, I feel comfortable taking certain liberties. In the following summary, I describe problems to which neoreaction has not been applied as problems to which it is appropriately applied. Since the problems to which neoreaction has been rigorously applied to describe are few, and its very nature as an explanatory conceptual system is contested, I believe the liberties I take with what I call “neoreaction” are entirely appropriate for working with a thought system in such chaotic infancy.
With respect to the use of the term “neoreaction” at all, I have the following to say. Definitions (labels) short of platonic forms are never perfect, yet remain necessary to efficiently encapsulate ideas for effective communication. No person, object or idea perfectly fits into any label, but it is simply not feasible to unload ones’ life story and intellectual paths to everyone who asks “so what sort of ideas are you committed to”, or “are you right wing or left wing”? Insofar as such labels are simply requisite for humans to sustain fruitful intellectual exchanges with other humans, I would say that neo-reaction suits my purposes as a descriptive label.
As I mentioned my use of the term of “neoreaction” is imperfect, and undoubtadely some philological purists would crucify my brief summary. Yet, in the spirit of neoreaction, I opt for an exit from the ideology they conceive to be the sole constitution of the term neo-reaction, and propose my own.
At its core, I believe neo-reaction is an effort to, at least, rediscover, and at most, reform or remove, the sacred tenets of post-enlightenment Western civilization, as consummated in the form of globalist, progressive, and culturally marxist, neo-liberalism. Neoreaction scrutinizes the unscrutinazable basic assumptions upon which mainstream Western thought has grown gluttonous and lazy. Such assumptions range from whether democracy exists, or ought to exist, to whether human races exist, and whether it is correct or desirable to consider all groups of humans and individuals therein “equal”.
As the excesses of the mainstream liberal order make themselves more apparent, ranging from the demographic disenfranchisement (by outnumbering and eventual replacement) of all ethnic-Europeans in their own homelands, to the increasingly narrow window of “acceptable speech” required to remain successful, or even unincarcerated, in Western society, reactionaries respond with questions. In the face of an ascendance of an East which benefits from the technological sophistication of modernity unencumbered by the excesses of what Chinese bloggers call the Baizu “White Left”, the neo-reactionaries are formed of desperate souls with libertarian ideological origins, breaking into the engine room and trying to find the faulty components before the S.S. West (whatever it is) falls off the waterfall and is lost forever, taking her faulty machinery and her occupants with her. While some see the neoreactionary project as a desperate hunt for the exit to the S.S. West, I see both projects as in the same family. At the very least, a neoreactionary style "exit" is considered equally beyond the pale.
I consider neoreaction uniquely important because it seems uniquely able and willing to touch most honestly on the greatest number of deficiencies of the modern west, whose natures are held to be heretical to observe or discuss. The phenomena that have prompted neoreaction include:
- A recognition that much of the confusion, terror, and censorious responses of established Western elites derive from their ever developing discovery that the most basic assumptions behind their world-view and sense of progress and destiny are in fact not shared by much of the world and may never be. That flooding people with money and technology does not produce individualist minded individuals with liberal democratic values and Anglophone assumptions about the nature of human progress, or a common notion of sanctified conduct. That in fact those things that seem regressive and backward, those things we thought were “left-behind” and were supposedly incompatible with “modernity” in a technological and economic sense, have gotten stronger since Fukuyama’s “end of history” philosophy and are becoming technologically modern and entirely consistent with “modernity”. That the likes of Saudi Arabia, or Iran and the inherent assumptions and desires of those millions who comprise these societies are simply not the same as the West and no amount of neo-liberal money throwing will solve this.
- That Eastern societies have permanently dispensed with western dogmas that underpin both old style liberalism and the modern bastardized iterations of globalism (unlimited immigration etc.) and yet are becoming more technologically sophisticated and powerful. That their major cities are homogenous, motivated, organized and have far lower crime and dysfunction than the “multi-cultural” west. That the natural human impulse to find meaning and value in life through notions of genetic legacy and inherited indigenous culture is proving valuable and key to Eastern ascendency.
- That Western first principles and moral dogmas, like there being zero difference between population groups of humans, that multi-racial/multiethnic societies are unquestionably desirable, and that ethnic awareness is socially destructive, are not universal principles, or the inherent trajectory of humanity, but culturally specific Western hangups holding back the wellbeing of ethnic Westerners in the face of an ever more prosperous and powerful Asia. (Not to mention that these dogmas may permanently destroy Western peoples, to no discernable benefit to humanity as a whole)
- That the Worship of victimhood, “anti-racism”, universal human fungability, are “deep” products of Christianity that have perhaps even more power in a modern secular/atheist West than it ever did through formal religious practice. That these deeply held convictions are thus vestigial leftovers on the way to modernity, a modernity whose benefits the east has proved capable exploit without being stuck with the vestigial deadweight. That the West may be better off for doing the same.
- That Europe had to implode its indigenous and healthy diversity in terms of culture, myth etc. to achieve modernity. That East Asia and the rest of the world was able to take Western modernity and its benefits, while retaining the benefits of their indigenous ways of life, producing societies with a sense of collective purpose, cohesion, and duty along with the technological sophistication that the West once only thought could function within its paradigm. Essentially that The rest of the world could take what worked and leave the rest, while the west was stuck with the cultural hangups that they needed to tolerate to get to modernity, and the layers upon layers of universalist (but actually parochial) “values” that were once required for modernity but no longer are.
- That the states of Asia will continue to be primarily populated by the peoples they are supposed to serve and govern, whereas whereas the states of the West will provide no such service to the indigenous peoples in whose interests they were supposed to operate. That modernity in terms of technological and economic progress, and individual prosperity, does not require unlimited immigration or the consequential dissolution of the people within modern states, as Asia demonstrates. That this is merely an astonishing treason and defect in the parochially Western state suicide impulse.
- That Cultural Marxism, SJWism, anti-racism/anti-white identityism, rather than a sacred model upon which the future world would be built, are in fact parochial vestiges deriving from an unrecognized Christian ideological legacy, that create obvious social degradation in the form of fractured societies and identity politics, with no observable benefit, and thus are rightly discarded by the East.
- That the doctrines of cultural Marxists, culminating in the Frankfurt school and post-modernism, are not great universal truths operating from outside any paradigm, but are merely pathological that the West can either dispense with, or wait to be taken over by the East who will do so on the West’s behalf.
- That at current rates of immigration there will not be a “West” to speak of. That the mad doctrines governing the West to bring in foreigners to be victim-worshiped and eventually outnumber indigenous Westerners will destroy themselves in time, as Western society ceases to be “Western” in any meaningful sense beyond geographic positioning.
- That those descending from non-Western groups living in the Western world selectively deploy the Western ideology of universalism, when it comes to universalizing the artifacts (abstract and physical incl. the Western university, Western technology, European art, European languages) of Western culture and disassociating them from the modern progeny of those who produced that culture. And that, these protected groups retreat under the Western (Christian/guilt induced) provision for ethnically defined claims to culture and ethno-cultural separationist identity when it comes to keeping their claim to any cultural artifact derived from any non-Western culture, whose inhabitants may reside in Western states.
- That the absurd inconsistencies surrounding the West and the absurd privileges it grants its non-indigenous population (who are soon to outnumber the indigenous western peoples) does not assist true liberal universalism, or any liberal western values, and does nothing but deracinate, and atomize the progeny of those who produced Western civilization.
- That this deracination and atomizing stems from the schizophrenic Western cathedral stripping its indigenous peoples of any ethnicity or cultural identity or legacy, while the vastly more numerous non-Western peoples, including those in Western society, continue to identify with and enjoy the association with their ethno-cultural legacies as humans have always done.
- That this absurd phenomenon of deracination and atomization is a case of one generation of Westerners (boomers) destroying the entire civilization they inherited, and upon whose framework they built their prosperity, and in the process are denying their descendants the same birthright by permanently destroying their ethno-cultural inheritance, not to mention their demographic ability to determine the course of their own states.
- Essentially that those pathologies of anti-racism, cultural Marxism, progressivism, post-modernism etc. that are eroding the West, and are furiously protected by the Cathedral, are suicidal and will cease to exist anyway. The job of the Neo-reactionaries would then be to uncover and remove these pathologies, before the peoples of the West are destroyed along with these pathologies, that are programmed to destroy themselves.
As a final note I would hope the neo-reactionary would desire to not just preserve the people of the West, but those (possibly) desirable aspects of it, like a notion of universal humanity, human rights, and meritocratic individualism, that may (possibly) be reliant on the existence of Western peoples to survive themselves. Should those apparent virtues prove irredeemable, however, the neoreactionary would have the gumption to dispense with them.
To return to my preference for “neoreaction” as a terminology; a self defined neo-reactionary is usually, this far, a distraught libertarian, not a born collectivist, or traditionalist. The term thus grants the wielder of the term a degree of analytical distance from the (perhaps) objectively true deficiencies of, or necessary operations required to, correct Western society. It appeals to those who can observe the true problems of the 21st century West, yet who remain simply uneasy with the motivations of movements against western modernity, which are more brute consequences of its failings, than dialectically sound and skeptical responses to them. This allows the neo-reactionary to accommodate logical tensions, and perhaps preserve those positive aspects produced by the Cathedral and its preceding heritage (such as modern science, medicine, the improvement of human material wellbeing, and [perhaps] a recognition of some place for a notion of common humanity etc.) in a way that would simply not be possible for committed ethno-nationalists, and primitivists.
I believe that the dialectical distance provided by neoreaction will attract the sorts of people who will be most willing and able to honestly interrogate the problems to which movements like the alt-right, identitarians etc. are reacting. Finally, being the desperate pursuits of distraught observers whose natural inclinations took them to libertarianism first, and whose intellectual foundations derive from libertarian roots, the foundations of the movement are altogether more innocent and less suspect than many others. I do not believe the spirit of neo-reaction is one of anger, or at least anger tempered with dialectic and skepticism, whereas I am not sure the same can be said of many alt-righters, and identitarians. Their anger is legitimate, but not suitable for the purposes of the neo-reactionary.
In more pragmatic and strategic terms, neoreaction fulfills an urgent need. Unless an alternative to Marxism can be established, which finds roots in the academy, there is going to be no chance of winning the cultural war that is now spitting distance from reaching the point at which the permament destruction of European cultures, peoples and nations becomes inevitable. This needs to be a system of thought that is sufficiently comprehensive and memetically virulent that it proves capable of countering cultural marxism on its home turf, the academy. It needs to be a system of thought whose consequences of adherence, include the survival of ethnic European nations and peoples, and a future in which ethnic Europeans do not inevitably become minorities in their own countries. It needs to be a system of thought in which victimhood and offense are not the highest virtues attainable in society. It needs to be a system of thought that speaks to some other deeply held natural human instinct, more naturally than marxism speaks to the instinct of compassion. It needs to be a system of thought that teaches students to analyze and construct, rather than deconstruct. It needs to be a system of thought that provides a notion of "progress" that is not comprised of marxist dogma. It needs to be a system of thought that allows the vain to be recognized by the tropes of “intellectual”, and “radical”, without neccissarily being Marxist. It needs to be a system of thought that can alter the political and metapolitical landscape so fundamentally that the overton window passively drifts right rather than left. Finally, it needs to be a system of thought that is so highly amorphic and customizable, that it can function in numerous disciplines at once and adapt to wherever it is required. The best hope I have found for such a system of are present within the fledgling traditions of neoreaction, and archeofuturism. That is why I subscribe to these ideas for now, though mountains of work remain to be done for them to prove their worth.
No feedback yet
Form is loading...