Hestia rejection of absolutism

It is with gratitude that I find Nick B Steve’s has officially cut any absolute and clear connection between the Hesita society/ Neoreaction and the corpus of Unqualified Reservations. I applaud his honesty, and take this as confirmation that neoreaction is in effect merely a subset of the Alt-Right.

I will cease using the term “neoreaction” and will revert to Absolutism.

This marks two very different traditions, and not three as a claimed before. The first is absolutist and coherently connected to the intellectually framework developed by Moldbug. Such a tradition is necessarily completely concerned with exploring the intellectual and logical rigour of the concepts contained within the absolutist model. This involves working directly and exclusively from the De Jouvenalian observation of power, and the subsequent absolutist property position occasioned by the rejection of stronger blocks to preserve liberalism as being logically incoherent.

Such a tradition provides a robust and unique view of society and the governing system, much in the same way envisioned by Moldbug in the concept of the antiversity. With this intellectual framework, we can see such things as BLM for what they really are – means by which central power structures can enact policy within an unsecure system.

However, such a tradition can only be maintained by adherence to the model, and the placing of further developments and ideas against the model – so yes, Moldbug is absolutely key. Any incoherence or challenges must then be met, unless they present such a challenge that the model proves wrong. As a result, strict and active management of new ideas must be enacted, prior held ideas which are incompatible must be dismissed, strong discipline must be maintained intellectually to such a degree that those who undermine the tradition are made aware of this issue and encouraged to correct, or stop claiming to be part of the tradition. Relaxing of intellectual rigour and doctrine for mere social requirements should be dismissed as rank stupidity.

Hestia, by means of Steves, has finally admitted what has been clear – they are not part of this tradition, and have merely treated this as an “influence” toward being merely “anti-leftist.” As such, they are basically part of the Frankenstein liberal tradition, as they maintain core liberal doctrine (capitalism – aka secondary property as prior to the state, the primacy of the individual, culture above power (necessarily because of the Burkean influence, and despite their claims to the contrary) etc.)

For Hestia to be a part of the Moldbug absolutist tradition, they would have need to enact strict intellectual controls. They don’t and haven’t. Much of what gets released under the neoreaction banner is intellectually incoherent. Worse than this, many of them hold intellectual position which are anti-absolutist and will not in any way change.

We can provide a working example of this with Steve’s own Week in Reaction, the first entry regarding the bombing has nothing to do with the absolutist tradition. Nothing. Unless you want to use it as a spring board to discuss the nature of divided governance, in which case there is no reason to pay it a jot of attention.

The next entries from The Neo-Ciceronian Times has a lot more promise, but I will hold off judgement until I have gotten a better grasp of his blog.

The next link from Ribbonfarm is irrelevant.

The link from Spandrall is irrelevant as he has already made it clear he doesn’t care about the absolutist tradition.

The link from Shylock Holmes is relevant.

The link from Social Pathologist is totally irrelevant as he has his own pet model for political developments.

The link from Citadel is also irrelevant as he has his own model for political developments.

The links from Nick Land are total calculated subversion.

The link from Count Null-Face is totally irrelevant (Absolutism is not the right)

The link from Glarus is interesting, but irrelevant.

The link from William Scott is irrelevant.

The link from this new blog is curious, and I would like to consider it in more detail (note the Hayek quote on tradition on the about page, and my comments on Burke here,) and Steve’s comments are decisive. He rejects absolutism.

I have dealt with Jim’s take on the Puritan thesis.

Do we need to go on? This not an absolutist tradition being maintained, it is a laissez faire sewer of liberalism, in which the slow grinding rejection of absolutism is enacted by the chase for “relevance,” which is to say the enactment of Conquest 2nd law. Less antiversity, and more confused Bucklyite conservatism. Muh capitalism.

Advertisements