Liberal premises? or De Jouvenal derived premises? They cannot co-exist.

Are we all fascists?

Define fascism. Better yet, don’t bother. The aim of this is to re-assert a conception of individualism that is at the core of liberalism and blame any deviation from it for the ills of society. A protest from the left as it were.

From the Absolutist position, which the only one derived from Moldbug with any coherency and sense, it becomes obvious this analysis and the complaints it contain are the result of severe confusion. No doubt neoreactionaries will love it, being entryists for this same liberal conception.

At heart, De Jouvenel is the moter behind the theory. He supplies solid ground from which clear principles can be formulated. One of which is the structural nature of the left and right which neoreactionaries/entryists abuse with a vegence. Killing the De Jouvenal theory to allow your own pointless weak tea liberal view is the goal, whether consciously or not.

What is worse about the De Jouvenal theory is that it points directly at the system being king over all. This presents serious problems, so neoreaction/liberal entryism (synonymous terms) cannot abide this.

An example of the problems this creates is supplied by considering the development of the state and the issue of the individual. De Jouvenal points directly to the state coming first and creating the “individual” as understood by liberal (and all modern) theories. In fact, taking this to its conclusion, it would seem obvious the individual and the modern state are tied together, the first creating the second. The individual of anarcho-capitalism, liberalism etc. as a state created being simply does not exist as a given, but is removed from local bonds, educated and kept “informed” by the state to become an individual. Land like all liberals takes this individul as natural thing, a given, and then wants to do away with the state, or automate it as if it would just be a neutral entity. This is the same error Hobbes made long ago based on a fantasy narrative of history.

At least Land is aware of this issue and asserts it clearly. The rest of neoreaction neither understands, nor is likely to understand the issue.

Looking at Land’s article, he is clearly asserting liberalism, with all of liberalism’s assumption and working his theory based on them. No De Jouvenal, and therfore no Moldbug in sight. Pure neoreaction, which is to say, pure entryism.

If neoreactionaries don’t understand what is going on now, they never will.