I feel the need to make it evidently clear that I am not a neoractionary again, just to ensure any confusion is not allowed to develop. I really don’t think what passes as neoreaction is in anyway seriously linked to Moldbug.
I am highly critical of Hestia, Land, and now I might as well make it crystal clear I am also critical of Doolittle and the Propertarians, Jim, and almost everything linked on the neoreaction aggregator. I find almost all of it to be confused, wrong or just plain raving liberalism. Everyone is welcome to maintain their position, I have no concern with converting or convincing them, and merely want to stake out the boundries clearly.
I find the claim that neoreaction is intellectually derived from Moldbug to be laughable at this point. As best I can tell, the general consensus of neoreaction is that Moldbug catalysed a Dark Enlightenment of race realism and anti-democratism. Whatever. I don’t care. Passing raving liberalism off as reoreactionary and derived from Moldbug is parasitic, but I have no control over the term, so it is what it is.
I do have a solution though, keep the name and make it absolutely clear Moldbug was nothing more than an intellectual catalyst whose ideas are no longer taken seriously – don’t try and warp them to create a fraudulent appeal to authority. This frees neoreaction to take the route which all of the main protagonists want – some sort of manchesterised techno state based on empirical philosophy.
Doesn’t this sound like a great compromise? It does to me.