Big “L” Liberal neoreaction being liberal is cut off from a history by consequence of its footing. Liberalism is never acknowledged as a tradition, because being based on Enlightenment abstract ideals (which are never proven) it is mere reality, this is beneficial, as a research of the history of liberalism throws up some serious questions. The idea that the values and concepts it holds could just be the secularised theological arguments of Catholic school men from subsequently protestant countries, and therefore a historically contingent thing, is impossible to acknowledge. That these secularised concepts seem to have only come to prominence as a result of the secular powers in these countries raising them as a weapon against the Catholic Church should be cause for concern, but it isn’t. The likes of Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and Ockham can be found espousing a form of Christianity which is very much amicable to the secular powers, and curiously finding their endeavours successful and protected. I have mentioned before how Wycliffe was covered by John of Gaunt, Martin Luther by the Elector of Saxony Frederick the III, and I have been wondering if the model fitted William of Ockham, only to find the following:
“Ockham remained in Avignon under a loose form of house arrest for four years while the papacy carried out its investigation. Through this ordeal Ockham became convinced that the papacy was corrupt and finally decided to flee with some other Franciscans on trial there. On May 26, 1328 they escaped in the night on stolen horses to the court of Louis of Bavaria, a would-be emperor, who had his own reasons for opposing the Pope. They were all ex-communicated and hunted down but never captured.
After a brief and unsuccessful campaign in Italy, Louis and his entourage settled in Munich. Ockham spent the rest of his days there as a political activist, writing treatises against the papacy.”
Protestantism and Liberalism can be seen to be nothing more than the caste off created by power struggles. This is the great insight provided by De Jouvenel’s model. It is not a carefully built tradition based on intellectual debate and development, but instead a screaming crowd of insanity being thrown forward as the basis for the greater centralisation of power and the conduct of industrialisation, each iteration being towards more individualism and more equality because to try to attain power in any other way opens you up to attack from this very process. The other models for explaining liberalism’s advance seem to include the Marxist critique in which it is nothing more than the superstructure built upon bourgeoisie economic life, and the Whig/ modern conception in which it is a magical progress – because of course the advocates of science would fall back on mysticism, it is the current year and all. Liberal neoreaction obviously takes the mystical route, and talks of “capitalism demons” and teleological AI, and the like. There is nothing underlying liberal neoreaction except for liberalism and the mindless “tradition” we have been left with.
Liberalism is therefore a cosmic joke. A civilisational collapse occasioned by competing power centers engaging in subversive battle as a means to achieve surreptitious goals that the very liberalism they spread contradicts.
The absolutist neoreaction position is clearly along the following line:
The history of ideas is the history of the resources behind them (which has some overlap with the base superstructure of Marxism) but that this is augmented and overridden by the action of Power, and power centres in both unified, and un-unified political structures.
Liberal neoreaction and Identarian neoreaction have no response other than “progress” under a new mask.