I can’t stand the pretentious “Neo-Reactionaries” and I especially hate the abbreviation, NRx. This also goes for its cousin, “The Dark Enlightenment.” In fact, you can pretty much tell what’s going on when an intellectual trend is prefixed with “neo. “Neo” basically means, “Hey, Chaim, let’s take some common sense ideas everyone already knows, give them a new name, then make up a new intellectual trend with us as the leaders!” Neo-conservatism is the obvious, perhaps canonical example, but we shouldn’t forget the “neo-liberals” of the Clinton administration. They were surprisingly similar to neo-conservatives, but were Democrats instead of Republicans.
So, neo-reactionary thinkers have said democracy sucks. Well, people like George Carlin have been saying that forever. In fact, I’m pretty sure you can find some ancient Greco-Roman philosophers saying much the same thing. So saying democracy sucks isn’t really new, so … why the “neo?”
As formulated by Mencius Moldbug, expanded by Nick Land and others, Neoreaction is what happens when conservatism adopts social engineering. Conservative goals however do not resemble liberal ones, which are ideological. Conservatives are consequentialists who aim for results in reality, not pandering to what is popular which is inevitably illusion.
He concludes this essay, “What Is Neoreaction?”, by advising his fellow dim enlighteners as to a plan of action:
Golden ages may be restored, but not solely by typing theory onto the internet, and not by radical and ill-conceived plans of revolution and “action” that consists of wanton violence. The solution is to re-take our institutions and dismantle them, bypassing libertarianism for…
View original post 970 more words