It is a difficult to pin neoreaction (Hestia) down to an actual intellectual position, because they refuse to do so except in the most vague terms, and because they have a diversity of people with differing opinions (all liberal.) I have been pointed to their reddit page, and to their official page before, but have remained confused. Now, however, the cat seems to be out of the bag. They are (as I suspected) merely liberals, working from liberal premises as embodied by the social contract theory of modernity.
article from from Mark Citadel makes it quite clear that the underlying concern for Hestia is the issue of trying to understand why individuals form greater societies. Any readers of my last couple of posts will recognize this from Locke, Hobbes, and all of the thinkers that Filmer opposed.
There is a serious danger here in that these liberal based “reactionary’ ideas act as a kind of blocker. On the surface they purport to support something (like a monarch) but in reality they are merely liberal theories loaded with unprincipled exception that are logically disastrous. Hobbes for example, came to the conclusion of the need for a monarch, so pretty reactionary, no? Not really. In reality he just made a thought experiment based on pure rhetoric. The anthropology is clearly nonsense, and not only he, but also Locke were fully aware of this. This is a key to liberalism, it is based on nothing but rhetoric. There is no way for liberal theorists to justify their position at base, hence Neitzsche and post-modernism.
What is really at stake here is the issue of first principles, and we can see why Hobbes, Locke and Descartes are tied together. They, as is the modern project, reasoned from premises that were abstract and not actually tied into experience, in doing so, they rejected that every first principle can only be determined reasoning from a tradition which is a historically inherited body of thought.
You will note that Descates claimed to reason from the premise of Cogito ergo sum, despite doing this reasoning in French and Latin, and therefore using thought processes which he inherited from his society. This is incoherent. Hobbes also reasons from the mushroom people premise, which has no claimed link to reality and any form of inherited tradition – which is an incoherent project. These people never existed, and again his whole reasoning is done from a specific background, with a specific language, which encodes specific thought patters. He is a 16th century Englishman from a protestant background from which he inherited voluntarist ethics among other things. So in sum, Hobbes is incoherent. You cannot escape context.
So can we put Hobbes and Filmer together? no, not at all. Hobbes’ monarch is an entity which has been granted power by all of these individuals who have never existed. This is nonsense, not just on the ridiculousness of reasoning from a rhetorical device which rejects the social nature of man, but also from the point of trying to decipher how these people engendered with this power can relinquish it. Filmer on the other hand is deducing first principles from experience, logic and applicable anthropology – it is illogical to claim the sovereign can be bound by a lower authority, you are born into society and your tradition, you don’t choose it and and we can add that any subsequent adoption of another tradition can only be done following your being provided with the tools of reasoning and rationality provided by your original tradition.
This is chalk and cheese. Which tradition is Sobornost given the above? It is obviously liberal and is obviously working on deducing from abstract principles. Sometimes this is overt, sometimes it is contained in concepts which have it enshrined in it. So when we see the quote we can see the liberal theorizing dripping from it:
“The wholeness of society, combined with the personal independence and the individual diversity of the citizens, which is possible only on the condition of a free subordination of separate persons to absolute values and in their free creativeness founded on love of the whole, love of the Church, love of their nation and State.”
Here we see this is just Hobbes, but with self-interest substituted for…love?! So we export Hobbes’ stupidity to Russia, and they turn it around and export it back to us as this crap? and the constant reference to “organic” unity is clearly referencing ground up societal organisation, which is again just liberalism and does not, and has never, existed. This is accepting liberal lies and then trying to establish anti-liberalism – on liberalism!
Society is ordered (or disordered) by the sovereign, this sovereign can either be formally untied from illogical and fraudulent blocks and therefore aligned with the interests of the people over whom the sovereign has authority, or it can be subject to blocks and divided, in which case all manner of bizarre behavior is engaged in, and society becomes a battle ground.