I would prefer to avoid the label “neoreaction” but I think that everyone and his dog who is not alt-right will be labelled this. The difference between alt-right and neoreaction is that neoreaction is opposed to electoral democracy, and the alt-right isn’t. This seems to be the generally accepted division whether it is admitted or not. The definition could have been very different, but it was not done, so that is how it has panned out. No way to really change this now, and there is no desire to either.
Given the above, it needs to be acknowledged that there is serious divergence of traditions here. I think the trike was nonsense, and did not catch the issue properly and did not take into account that no synthesis of the traditions is at all possible.
The first tradition is that led by Land and Co over at Xenosystems. This is a liberal tradition in every sense. So can really be defined as anti-electoral liberalism, with all of the grounding figures being from the big “L” liberal tradition – from William of Ockham, through Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Nietzsche, Delueze. This tradition contains premises which are unremittingly liberal, these include; the individual as prior to society, the conception of capitalism based on anglo-economics derived from Smith, the rejection of the need of a political organisation in favour of some form of systemic rule of protocol in line with constitutionalism. It is in a word, mainstream. The hysterical nature of the denial of this, and the constant need to loudly proclaim its difference from the Alt-right is symptomatic of this.
The second tradition is again a liberal one, but differentiated in the differing source material. This tradition is the indentitarian tradition neoreaction. The key figures share a lot of overlap with the above, but differ in the focus on some form of liberal collectivism. This tradition has not been expressed very clearly as of yet. This is centered around Social Matter/ Hestia.
The third tradition is the absolutist one, this works largely from the works of Moldbug, who falls solidly in this branch. The key thinkers here are with the exception of De Jouvenel very much outside of the liberal tradition (and even De Jouvenel is a fascinating exception in that his analysis is a rejection of liberalism without him being aware – he was brilliant.) These include Filmer, Carlyle, Aristotle, Aquinas, Alaisdair MacIntyre, Girard (yes a lot of Catholics there,) Moldbug himself – a list of infamously anti-liberal thinkers.
This absolutist tradtion is based on the concept that the structure of governance is exceptionally important, and that a unification of the governmental organs is vital. This tradition by necessity takes the state as prior to the individual, and is clearly based on a virtue ethics which rejects ethics as being an epistemology, among other points.
Maybe there is a further breakdown present here, but this seems to be the main three.
The upshot of this is that every single word creates utter havoc. For example, what is capitalism? There is no single definition; instead it is definable by different tradition in line with their own inherent rationality. As such, for liberal neoreaction capitalism is free trade laissez faire capitalism as per the mainstream. For identarian neoreaction, they also accept this but dislike it. For Absolutists, this whole argument goes out of the window, because the concept of private and public property in the liberal sense makes no sense for the absolutist. It is all the property of the sovereign, and subsequent usage is secondary.
Further to this, these differing traditions occasion differing possible views of regimes and other theories based on accumulated historical baggage. So liberal Nrx cannot countenance reading even a single line of Fascist theory because they are beholden to liberal mores, plus they have adopted liberal dismissals that already strongly exist. George Orwell, Hannah Arendt and all the anti-fascist hysteria that has been created by the liberal power structures is its inheritance, so they will make statements which have been put into their mouths by the likes of Karl Popper without ever reading primary material, which would be incomprehensible to them anyway. The same goes double for Carlyle et al.
The same also goes for any possible reading of anti- free trade capitalist literature. The power structure in the form of education and foundations has been pumping out crass propaganda for so long, and so pervasively, that it has become reality. Liberal nrx being derived from these sources is necessarily a flea ridden subversive element.
The worst part about liberal neoreaction is that it takes these liberal sources and takes them as reality itself, which is the same trick liberalism proper has been pulling for a long time. Liberalism is the ultimate Memento movie style tradition by virtue of claiming not to be a tradition, but instead reality based on abstract “truths.”
The only solution is to accept a schism. This is the only way to quarantine liberal neoreaction.