Interestingly Antinomia has resurrected an article form Nick Land which is a pretty open manifesto for the inauguration of liberal neoreaction on the back of democratic scepticism. The article is interesting in its rejection of Moldbug’s direction (except scepticism of democracy) and is clearly a manifesto of liberalism. His claim that:
“It might be argued that civilization is nothing else, that is to say: the tendency of personal authority to decline towards zero. Ape-men will reject this of course. It’s what they do.”
Land then, in all but name, has made it clear he is a believer in progress, with progress being comparable to civilization, which is reducible to personal authority being subsumed to law. This is palpable nonsense. It is enormously misdirected and a compete about turn from Moldbug’s point. His naked worship of constitutionalism and rule by algorithm are solidly progressive. The spread of constitutionalism is the spread of progressive government, but the American right, being the American right, has been a source of positive harm on this score, with confused adherents managing to convince themselves that leftism is both authoritarianism statism (as opposed to this being a mere result of the unworkability of leftism which is anarchic and libertarian at source) and anti-constitutional (despite the first act of all left wing regimes being to set up a constitution.)
What we have to really note here is that Land is not advocating a restoration, and is not offering a rejection in any way of the current governing structure, he is rather calling for better blocks, which is again, a complete rejection of the analysis ingrained in absolutist neoreaction, but of course he hasn’t actually made a case against the analysis of absolutist neoreaction (which he dismisses as royalist) and he doesn’t need to by virtue of pandering to the status quo of American conservatism, or as Rev. Dabney would put it “Nothern Conservatism.”
Is this salvageable? Is a synthesis possible? Emphatically no, and any claim or attempt at such is a source of confusion and should be put under the spotlight- this includes the actions of the Hestia Society. Liberal neoreation and its proponents have no intention of getting to grips with De Jouvenel’s analysis and the implication that progressivism and liberalism are nothing more than the caste offs from power struggles (making their opinions contingent nonsense), nor do they have any inclination to deal with the anthropology underlining their manifestos which derives from a particularly psychotic form of Protestantism. Instead they load the analysis with their liberal interpretations and wear it like a skinned animal. The Calvinist thesis becomes a conspiracy theory and rejection of the governing system in favour of one premised on a centralised executive based on judgement becomes blockchain judgement free constitutionalism.