Reactionary hippies

It seems pretty clear at this point that a formal break has occurred and that neoreaction has settled into a groove of standard right wing conservatism by virtue of the component actors refusing to consider the structure of governance to be a problem. The result of this is that all aspects of neoreaction consider politics to be merely a case of drawing up a wish list and then organizing to implement it, which is a specifically modern approach to governance. It is a haven of Nietzscheans, identarians, positivists, libertarians and other assorted crap –  basically right wing “open your mind” hippies.

To explain what I mean by this, consider the constant criticism aimed at my rejection of imperium in imperio as being “ring of Fnargl” worship. The irony of this is that, if anything, my position is as far from this as possible, whereas modern political platform building is an implicit embracing of this. Take for example Nick Land’s position of blockchain implemented libertarianism. This is basically a political platform (I wish for X, Y and Z) which is then enforced by a blockchain protocol which is in effect the ring of Fnargl. Or take for example Hestia’s forward looking reactionary, traditionalism whatever, which is to be enforced by an elected party or dictator. The ring of Fnargl implementing pre-decided wish regardless of circumstances.

From my position, which I take directly from Moldbug (that’s how a intellectual tradition works, it is not appeal to authority) progressivism is merely a result of a divided governmental system. When the system has multiple power centers that are supposed to be able to engage in conflict with each other (see republicanism) they fall into a rut of two general centers – the progressive dominant group that centralizes through equality and the conservative subservient group. No break from this is possible unless you break from the divided governance structure. All attempts to add bells and whistles to this system to delay the self-cannibalization occasioned by this state of affairs merely distracts from the real resolution of the problem.

The position I take, and again, which is taken from Moldbug, is that the best we can do is to try to deduce what actors will do in the specific position they occupy within a governmental system. We cannot dictate what they must do with a law, constitution or other such ring of Fnargl gimmicks, but must provide them with the requisite circumstances and organisation to allow them to act in accordance with their role without having to resort to such bizarre recourse as funding black rioters, anti-corn law movements or other forms of self-protesting to circumvent the republican blocks in place that stop them from acting correctly.

This has nothing to do with neoreaction, and their reference to Moldbug merely muddies the water. They take the metaphors used to explain this problem of governance structures, and then back fill it with their own crap. When it is propertarian subversives, that is one thing, but when it is those who claim to be genuine supporters, then it gets troublesome.