It is surely safe to conclude that neoreaction has no consensus, and it was never going to obtain one. When two people approach a concept with radically differing priors which are not examined in any way, any point of agreement will be necessarily brief and superficial. To supply an example, we can use the neocameral model of Moldbug which was cited as a unifying principle. Now, each person’s understanding of this model is based on their own priors from their own tradition. So, whereas Moldbug approaches it from priors based on rejection of imperium in imperio as he repeatedly announces, others have taken this model and used vastly differing priors, so that what is understood by the neocameral model differ wildly, and any agreement on this point rapidly diverges after this agreement.
A superb example is provided by the anti-puritan blog, as it was previously by Land on Xenosystems, and there are probably others that don’t come to mind immediately. Now, this rejection of imperium in imperio is key to understanding further Moldbug directions, and it was key to understanding the sovcorp model. Moldbug had reached the correct conclusion that having competing centers of authority in a single polity results in them fighting it out surreptitiously until one is supreme, and one always does end up supreme (violence when used short of civil war is always done through a proxy.) The resulting chaos is disastrous. This is a point which is utterly key. Competing centers of authority engage in conflict, but this first principle has not been taken on by those such as Xenosytems and the anti-puritan blog. Why? The answer is simply that they are working on liberal and modern principles. The joke is that the entire political system is based on the same principles held by the likes of Land, Axel and all other neoreactionary thinkers that do not hold the first principle that competing power centers engage in centralising conflict. There is absolutely nothing new or innovative about them.
What we see with this whole mess then, is that neoreactionaries come along to the model, ignore the key first principle behind it, and literally assume it is based on liberal first principles. These include conceptions of property conflated with mere possession, the individual being before society and the state, and various other theoretical pieces of crap all modern thinkers have taken as a given. The property point is one I have been banging the drum on for a while now, and should be give away that not all is right with the liberal interpretation of sovcorp – it isn’t Hobbesian because Hobbes was justifying oligarchic property distributions. Moldbug instead makes it clear Sovcorp is in full possession and then grants property status. This is a major difference.
So, to recap, we have a theoretical model in the form of sovcorp which all in neoreaction agree on, but almost all bring liberal first principles to the table, when it is in fact not liberal first principles that form the basis of it, but very unliberal ones. Without even thinking about it, they acted as subversives and entryists. Sometimes you really do have to stand in awe of liberalism, as it manages to destroy all in its radius without any organisation. All of its most ardent opponents turn out to be its most aggressive and dutiful servants. Any attempt to develop something non-liberal is descended on and devoured by these people.
Instead of sovcorp being an intellectual tool to explore the possible formation of political structures that ensure organised and complementary flows of authority, it has been turned into a democratic system, or a republican system with various wish lists list to be enacted. The patchwork of differing political states (one communist, one white nationalist etc.) is an absurd concept which is an express rejection of the rejection of the imperium in imperio first principle. Rather than being political theory based on historical observation, it reverts to being liberal absurdity with no consideration of the effects of the political system on the participants within the system because this conflicts with the liberal first principles that were basically pulled out of Hobbes and Locke’s asses to justify the collapse of western monarchy into oligarchy.