I see that Ross Douthat’s article on reaction has given exposure to reactionary thought in the centre of the Liberal media aparatus, but in doing so he has increased the confusion around the concept. There was already too much bullshit around Neoreaction, let alone Reaction.
As it currently stands, there are half a dozen or so trends within Reaction/Neoreaction which render the names useless slogans as a result of the failure to establish clarification.
The first, and most obscene trend, is to use the terms as a means to bootload “Classical Liberalism·” This is pretty funny, given the claimed influence from Moldbug by Neoreaction. This trend consists of adopting the position of those directly renounced by Moldbug, such as Hanson, or Freidman, or the Cathedrals’ Lionel Curtis. Read this link (http://www.mailstar.net/curtis1.html) for a summary of Curtis’ neoreactionary aproved writing. The empistemological underpinning of Universalism/Progressivism has a knack for worming its way into everything.
The second trend overlaps with the first, and involves deeming everything old as reactionary in an indescriminate way.
The third trend is to bring bog standard (older) Conservatism into the fray, which is clearly just Progressivism.
The fourth trend (which again overlaps with others) is to try to claim “realism” as reaction. Realism being a piss poor version of Empiricism/ Positivism (back to the epistemological underpinning.)
The fifth trend is clearly White Nationalism.
The sixth trend is (what I am trying to encourage) maintaining the De Jouvenel/Carlyle/Filmer/Moldbug link which is built around the core of rejection of imperium in imperio, as well as the heavy critique/rejection of progressive epistemology.
This last trend, you may notice, is quite specific, and very unpopular, yet it is the only one which can lay claim to be different from anything in circulation, and which can lay claim to being very old, and very alien. All the rest are nothing new at all.