Amerika blog has a post up about the alt-right swallowing up neoreaction which is interesting, but not because of the aim of the post. Apparently neoreaction is a salon and a philosophy, which does not make much sense to me, but neither does the rest of the post, and there are more interesting things to do than get bogged down with what neoreaction is. What really gets my attention are the following segments:
“You will note that all of these overlap. For example, all favour Nationalism and strong hierarchy. Many favor aristocracy, such as monarchists, reactionaries and traditionalists. Some are nearly indistinguishable from one another, except for a fundamental idea or two, such as reactionaries and traditionalists. And so on. A complete definition of these is beyond this article.”
“Within this realm, we might see Neoreaction as a response by the middle classes to the degeneration of their countries. The basic idea of Neoreaction is that we should treat government like a business, expect it to act like a business and limit it, and allow the dual forces of capitalism and free association to fix everything else. This is not far removed from the original American ideas of Thomas Jefferson, or even Jared Taylor’s notion that if we removed anti-discrimination law, this country might have a chance at survival.”
“Your average Neoreactionary, like the middle class, wants to escape two things: the icky people who have now infested his society, and the government which has become so parasitic that it is difficult not to notice the daily blood drainage. He believes that a System can work, that the good bourgeois can form gated communities and get away from the icky people, and then the good life will return.”
The reason I find these segments funny is that they are utterly contradictory but demonstrate exactly my issue with neoreaction. Monarchism is non-nationalist, so how you can have monarchical nationalism is beyond me. One is based on authority flowing down, the other is based on imperium in imperio. This is made even more strange in the second of the quotes in which it is claimed that government should be like a business, but limited. Well, by who is it limited? And if they can limit it, then they are the government are they not? Or is this the shareholders? in which case why the “we should”? There is an evasiveness here that is typical, and I have mentioned that the concept of a constitutional sov corp is inherently retarded before.
The final paragraph is the icing on the cake, in that it is clearly outlining anti-government libertarianism, which is impossible to square with monarchism except in the overall spirit of obtaining liberty.
It is fairly simple, either you support imperium in imperio, or you don’t. Neoreaction as it stands supports it, which places the likes of Moldbug out of the fold, which is something that should really be discussed, and something I have been pointing out for a while. It is why articles that cover the whole Alt-right/ neoreaction fiasco have such a hard time making sense of it all. Land, the neoreaction blogsphere, the alt-right, WN, identarians etc. etc. all veer into imperium in imperio, whilst Moldbug and about half a dozen people (myself included) veer away from it.