If you take the Left-Right split to be order and chaos, then you are reactionary. If you don’t, then you are just another brand of progressivism. It is as simple as this. The reason for this is that if you hold the left and right are rooted in your selection of policies or biologically encoded somehow, then you are excusing chaos. Left and right only come into existence once society is tearing itself apart and is in a death spiral. The left openly embraces chaos; the right embraces it less openly – stupidly really. So alt-right, paleo conservatives etc, whilst having “aspirations” of order delude themselves that chaos can be held in stasis or yielded to slowly…actually I don’t think they, or anyone else, can tell you what the right’s ultimate goal is, as they actually don’t have a goal at all. That is why conservatism and the right can morph into all kinds of retardation, it has no core purpose except as a reaction to progressivism .
That conservatism and the right morph into stupidity at the drop of a hat is not something that I believe anyone can argue against sincerely. The reason that this is so seems to me to be a direct result of a refusal to adopt a hierarchical and ordered organisation. This is not surprising given modernity is based on rejection of order and hierarchy at every single opportunity (Notable exceptions in the security apparatus notwithstanding.) This gives the Left a massive benefit in that their entire process is very, very ordered against order. It’s the distributed conspiracy Moldbug refers to. They are always against something, or someone, and they move in waves in the manner of fashion or Rene Girard’s satanic mobs. The right, in rejecting the order of an order, instead mimics the left’s tactics, which is stupid at the most basic level.
So, this raises the question of what those with a reactionary aim should do, and the answer is simple, yet very difficult – get their act together. This includes-
- Having a set hierarchy to determine and control this discourse
- Establishing what is acceptable within reactionary discourse
- Policing this discourse
- Renouncing all claims and proposals for leaderless consensus
I don’t see anyone on the right doing any of the above, they are too hooked on progressivism, plus they haven’t dug into the philosophical problems of their “movement.” Any closer attempt to pick apart conservatism is as worthless as trying to make sense of liberalism (of which it is a mere shadow.) It is really just a roiling chaos of stupid.
The key point of reaction, and what makes it completely different from left and right progressivism, is that it acknowledges that things do not just work themselves out anarchism style; that is stupid. It also does not adhere to determinism which is the bedrock of progressivism. There must be someone in control of things, or it will just morph and shift in really stupid directions and that person or entity must be free to engage reason in the classical sense which entails full usage of their faculties and consideration of all aspects of the issues at hand. Some really stupid system such as anarcho-capitalism or democracy cannot by definition do this, it is throwing things to magic to sort out frankly, and because everyone is a progressive, it allows for this argument over which magic system we should all defer to, to continue. This also extends to philosophical and political theory and understanding, because A) people are not reasonable, and do not gather around the obvious truth – this is a myth linked to science and B) for a system to maintain coherence, someone needs to be monitoring it.
If you follow on from Moldbug, this entails logically that you follow within the proscriptions outlined by him (at his latest, not cherry picking from what you wish,) and the tradition it entails. He should really actively monitor it, or nominate someone officially to maintain the system. Leaving it to morph and twist into all sorts of bizarre shapes that make no sense Protestant style is disastrous.