Neoreaction is right wing confusion

What is the right and what is the left?

The phenomena of left and right political spectrum is in reality a democratic one, or rather a divided governance one. It is only when a political system is designed, or degrades into a divided one that we get these two political affiliations. A divided system can be classified as one in which multiple power centres within the system divide authority, rendering their actions self-serving, and not in service to the overall system. The reader will note that despite the delusions of nationalists, this is specifically what a republican system is designed to do.

Once we have acknowledged that the left and right are created by such a system, then we can question how this occurs, to which the answer is provided by De Jouvenel and Moldbug. Leftism is the resultant political suite of ideas and behaviours created by the centralising segments of society, and the low clients of these power centers. The right is the section of society which is in opposition to this pincer movement, often directing their energy against the low pincer, as the high pincer is self-effacing for obvious reasons.

This is effectively settled in relation to the absolutist tradition, but not to the neoreactionary one which whilst claiming to be a successor to Moldbug, for all intents and purposes, rejects his points.


A number of potential reasons spring to mind, from not understanding them all the way to simple arrogance. You cannot reject this explanation for the right and the left and claim to still be within the fold. If you put in your own special snowflake explanation you are at best a source of confusion, and at worst a subversive. Either way you have no political discipline and are damaging, not helpful.

This brings us to that neoreactionary staple of “no enemy to the right” which implicitly rejects the absolutist explanation of the right and left and bizarrely places neoreaction as a right wing position. To untangle this piece of nonsense we have to start with what right means in “no enemy to the right.” If it is in fact the absolutist understanding, then it is nonsensical. The aim is to literally end the right and left by undividing authority and securing sovereignty by having no trace of imperium in imperio. It is not to seek “success” within it. The right are by definition supporters of divided governance by not wishing to alter the governance system and make it a secure one. Given this, the definition of right wing in “no enemy to the right” must be a special snowflake definition, which brings us back to the subversive nature of neoreaction. We have right wingers wearing it like a skin suit, which means it has failed in being anything other than a fixture in the divided governance system. Conservatism MK2. Good job. What was the point in that? The members of neoreaction will now get super excited when a left wing media establishment mentions them. They will get an ego boost, and will be satisfied with their little reward, just like a right winger does. That is their place in the system. They reject the De Jouvenelian/ Moldbug explanation of right and left, so won’t even recognise this. They are so special that anyone who has political discipline is “autistic” or “appealing to authority.”

Another area in which neoreaction acts as a subversive waste of space labouring for the divided political system is in the concept of The Cathedral. The Cathedral has become nothing more than a puritan version of the Elders of Zion, and the source of this is again the issue of divided versus undivided governance. On the one hand the observation that leftist cultural development is observable along the dissident Christian sects history is accepted as valid, yet the explanation that it is divided governance that has driven this is not accepted. Totally undisciplined special snowflakes at work again unfortunately.

You will notice that this issue overlaps with the left/right one in being an underlying problem of divided governance. Neoreaction as a concept rejects this, but do the neoractionaries admit they reject this? No. Yet everything they publish implies it.

We can also look at other staples of neoreactionary thought, such as exit, formalism and patchwork. Reading Moldbug, none of these concepts are definable in the manner neoreaction advocates. They have undergone complete overhaul. The first step being the rejection of the underlying framework of rejection of divided governance. Once this is done, the concepts become right wing subversive nonsense wearing the names like masks. Exit becomes the enshrining of imperium in imperio, formalism becomes securing imperium in imperio by digitial/ automated means and patchwork becomes a exit system in which individuals who are states by themselves can enact their individual level imperium in imperio.

As an intellectual endeavor, neoreaction has been an astounding failure.