This comment here is typical.
““Neoreaction” has been much discussed recently, but what is it?
Neoreaction defines itself more in in terms of what it is opposed to than in terms of what it is in favor of.
Fine. So what is neoreaction against?”
This is followed by:
“Because the origin of neoreaction (blog essays by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Curtis Yarvin and former University of Warwick philosopher Nick Land) focuses more on the problem of democracy than solutions, there are several schools of neoreactionary thought, ranging from the juvenile to the disreputable to the interesting.”
I’ve said repeatedly, that a complete removal of the core of Moldbug from neoreaction is coming. Fine, this leaves Moldbug to my project of taking it forward, whilst neoreaction can embrace the EXACT OPPOSITE of Moldbug’s coherent theory and become outright anarcho-capitalist – with “realism” aka pretty empty and arbitrary Liberalism. Mindless trendy mush.
Yarvin does focus on the solution, but Clark has obviously got poor reading skills. I have been elaborating on this, and am working on bringing the project forward, or at least keeping it alive, but this is impossible within the “Neoreaction” frame, as it is infested with Libertarians, materialists and all other sorts of anti-statist liberals.
If neoreaction is not based on Yarvin and his De Jouvenelian analysis, rejection of Imperium in Imperio, and rejection of Liberlism’s anthropology among other highly interconnected points , then be done with it and leave it to me. You cannot be everything at once. Go Anarcho-capitalism larping where everyone owns a bitcoin robot or something and becomes an Ayn Rand superhero,because it’s not like the central power can’t just take your things by sending in a diversity or harassment co-ordinator. That would be embarrassing.