Intellectual Sovereignty- you don’t have it.

It is customary for Neoreaction Central over at Social Matter to take two steps forward, and two steps back and then run around in a circle. You will always find an article which actually aligns with Moldbug and the neaoreactionary tradition captured therein, followed by either a number of articles that have zero relevance to anything really (apart from pointless handwringing,) and/or a couple of articles which are a complete rejection of the tradition raised by Moldbug, usually under the guise of some sort of watery identarianism, libertarianism or other such alt-rightism.  This is a least an improvement on the rest of the sphere of blogs which are either hopelessly incoherent (demonstrating a lack of even a cursory reading of anything Moldbug was writing,) or aggressively opposed and promoting some sad sack version of libertarianism + race awareness using the single thought experiment of patchwork as a jump off point (a concept which fails to hold up to scrutiny and crucially, was based on the premise of absolutist states with total control – as in everyone was no better than a slave technically.) Of course this then has morphed into hyper individualised sovereignty and is so devoid of coherence that it has come full circle back to liberalism – oops.

It is also customary for Neoreaction Central to put forward claims which they then completely fail to adhere to. For example, they will often claim that progressivism is the result of a failure to maintain organisational control over religion and ideological systems. Then they not only fail to maintain control over Neoreaction, but actively fosters confusion as to what it is supposed to be, demonstrating either gross ineptitude and negligence, or a total confusion of what they are claiming to advocate. Any conceptual advance is rendered impossible. What is the doctrine on property? There are a dozen or so crazy concepts rolling around. What is the doctrine on governmental systems? Some appear to even advocate no governance – it is that incoherent. I could go on.

The latest example of a total inability to apply their own claims to themselves is the latest Social Matter article on sovereignty in the context of the Ukraine. OK, what about Neoreactionary intellectual sovereignty? There is none. Is there a close and studious examination of all concepts being put forward against a doctrine that is specifically neoreactionary? LOL. No. It would be funny if they did though, because there is no way a doctrine that was not aggressively liberal would be formulated. Example number one and number two

“We need capitalism, because we need wealth and technology, we need patriarchy and tradition, to uphold the enforcement of the marital contract without which our population will disappear, and to keep ethnonationalism in line to prevent ethnonationalism from devouring capitalism with socialism and demotism, and we need ethnonationalism to prevent outsiders from devouring our society and our capitalism with it”

This is an old one, but it is still the same really, and covers it all.

What is capitalism here? Obviously it is going to be the liberal conception of capitalism involving free markets, competition as the panacea for all, the private property – public property distinction and all the other trappings that come with it. Here we have a giant pozz load of liberalism injected strait into Neoreaction.

No intellectual sovereignty.

What is tradition here? This is going to be Burkean tradition, which again is a giant pozz load injected from behind, vigorously, by a whig. As MacIntyre puts it:

““Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Indeed when a tradition becomes Burkean, it is always dying or dead. . . . The individualism of modernity could of course find no use for the notion of tradition within its own conceptual scheme except as an adversary notion; it therefore all too willingly abandoned it to the Burkeans, who, faithful to Burke’s own allegiance, tried to combine adherence in politics to a conception of tradition which would vindicate the oligarchical revolution of property of 1688 and adherence in economics to the doctrine and institutions of the free market. The theoretical incoherence of this mismatch did not deprive it of ideological usefulness.” (222)

So what we see is a liberal traditionalism, which is based on an individualism and a concept of human interaction which is thoroughly liberal. Even worse, Burke turns traditionalism into a thoroughly retarded “do nothing”ism which is all it could be in liberal scheme which is underpinned by an ethics of effective co-operation – he is the blazing forerunner of cuckservatism. This traditionalism can only root itself in the current arrangement, and then the subsequent arrangement that comes about after the umpteenth social revolution, because it is a rejection of their being an ordering of the goods which must of necessity be embodied in a political order primary to any market interaction. So Burke at once upholds liberalism and the goods of effective co-operation, and simultaneously denies there being a ground upon which traditionalism can be based other than unthinking “do nothingism. All of this…drum roll… in the name of traditionalism. This “happy effect of following nature, which is wisdom without reflection” of Burke is as brain dead as can possibly be, but this is what traditionalism means. – stupidity and claims to stasis and non-action. Can we be pwned any harder? Of course Social Matter is on the case with Burkean traditionalism. And can we leave a comment on Burke without quoting his assertion that “The laws of commerce are the laws of Nature, and therefore the laws of God” rendering all ethics not based on the market (the goods of effective cooperation) and therefore individualism of the liberal variety, unnatural. The whole of history before Whigism unnatural? That is the modern guru on traditionalism.

If your conception of traditionalism is taken from a liberal, then you clearly have no intellectual sovereignty.

And finally, what is ethno-nationalism? Well, I hate to break this to everyone, but it is again a liberal pozz load. Three loads of liberal pozz in one go.

Ethno-nationalism is the forming together of a society based on the ethics of effective co-operation hence the democractic nature and the reliance on laws to keep it together. Ethno-nationalism is a republican endeaver and in such a society based on Enlightenment era ethics, all is law. As Moldbug pointed out –

“With the notable exception of (later) German and (sometimes) French nationalisms, all the nationalist movements in Europe are pet projects of the British (and American) liberal. (Yes, that same Manchester liberal – mostly, though not entirely.) Mazzini, Garibaldi, Kossuth, etc, etc, etc: all cheered by great crowds when they come to London. (Whereas General Hyaena is lucky to escape with his life.)”

So what is the difference between a General Hyaena and the ethno-nationalists? Or for that matter a Metternich and the ethno-nationalists? Because I don’t think Neoreaction Central can give an answer, especially as they are fuelled by Whig pozz from every possible angle.

So, intellectual sovereignty….