Quote# 136016

Principles of Reactionary Thought

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
2. Right is right and left is wrong.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.
5. Libertarianism is retarded.
6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.


______

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.

This is the most basic tenet of Neoreaction/Reaction. Equality is a lie. Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are fundamentally opposed to it. Aristotle said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” The idea of equality ruins organic differentiation and makes humanity into a uniform, grey mass. Inequality does not necessarily mean “superior” or “inferior” (though it very well may), but it does mean different. Things which are different are not equal. They can never be. Equality is a failed ideal. It destroys excellence. We could not be more fundamentally opposed to the notion of equality. Evola was extremely clear on rejecting equality in favor of authority and auctoritas. In Men Among the Ruins, he said:
Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the “immortal principle” of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. [...]
I believe these are mere empty words. This is not a “noble ideal” but some-thing that, if taken absolutely, represents a logical absurdity; wherever this view becomes an established trend, it may usher in only regression and decadence. [...]
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the “many” not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of “justice” is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. Conversely, to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated.

If Reaction/Neoreaction is against anything, it is against equality. If someone argues for equality, they are not a reactionary/neoreactionary, but something else.

2. Right is right and left is wrong.

To reactionaries, this is axiomatic. The phrase was popularized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin, who along with Carlyle and Evola, is part of the central canon of neoreactionary thought. If someone disagrees with this phrase, they may be a perfectly delightful person, someone I’d enjoy having tea with, but they would not be a reactionary. Moldbug cites this phrase in his “Journey from Mises to Carlyle” post. In “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations,” he says:
On the other hand, it is also quite easy to construct a very clean value system in which order is simply good, and chaos is simply evil. I have chosen this path. It leaves quite a capacious cavity in the back of my skull, and allows me to call myself a reactionary. To you, perhaps, it is the dark side. But this is only because the treatment is not yet complete.

Again, basic stuff. He also writes:
The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders. The same asymmetry is why corporations and the military, whose system of hierarchical executive authority is inherently orderly, cluster to the right.


3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
In general, hierarchy promotes stability, order, direction, cohesion, and so on. Reactionaries object to the rigid hierarchies of totalitarianism, which turn men into cogs in a machine. (See Fascism Viewed from the Right by Julius Evola for a reactionary critique of fascism, or chapter four of Men Among the Ruins.) If you have trouble distinguishing reactionary thought from fascism, you must read chapter four of Men Among the Ruins, or you will never get it. Rather than advocating rigid hierarchies that crush human autonomy, reactionaries support the “organic State,” which Evola describes:
Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State. The idea behind such a State is the priority of the person over any abstract social, political, or juridical entity, and not of the person as a neuter, leveled reality, a mere number in the world of quantity and universal suffrage.

The goal of the organic State is to foster “a process of individuation and of progressive differentiation” of persons, rather than a universalist, leveling aesthetic. Some people are natural leaders, others are not. This is not about all reactionaries fantasizing ourselves to be natural leaders, destined for a spot up the totem poll Come the Revolution. The idea is creating a society that offers a pleasant differentiation and individuation from top to bottom. There are reasons why this actually makes being at the bottom a better and more interesting experience than it is now, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.

It’s tiresome to go into this one, since the feminists are so rabid about it, but reactionaries basically approve of traditional sex roles. In traditional societies, women did in fact take on some jobs and roles that might be considered careers by today’s standards. They were not all stay-at-home wives, and even if they were, many were extremely industrious. I’m not sure why staying at home, making clothing, cooking, gardening, and raising children is any less empowering or worthwhile than male activities like digging ditches, welding, or sitting at an office desk on a computer all day.

Conversely, if a man chooses to stay home and raise children, many other men will think less of him. No amount of progressive propaganda and reeducation camps will change this, because it’s hard-coded into our brains through millions of years of evolution. Men respect other men who go out into the world and do masculine things. Similarly, the pressure to conform to gender norms is stronger in all-girl schools than in mixed schools, exploding the myth that it is men who instigate and police gender norms, to the detriment of women. People can and do create bizarro-world bubbles where these roles are turned upside-down, but they are not very stable.

Women are less happy today than they were 40 years ago, despite all the alleged advances made by feminism during that time. One reactionary woman I’ve spoken with has said that feminism is fundamentally dishonest because it is a movement for women without children, while it portraying itself as helpful to all women. Another woman says, “I would prefer that norms strongly support functional families and that anyone who wants to do something else has to swim upstream”, which is a fair summation of the reactionary position.

5. Libertarianism is retarded.

Many reactionaries are post-libertarians, i.e., not libertarians. A rite of passage into reaction/neoreaction is the renunciation of libertarianism. I was never a libertarian, so it’s taken me a bit of time to fully understand the relationship between libertarianism and neoreaction, but I understand it now. Libertarians make personal freedom axiomatic, and refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures like society and the family. This is anathema to reactionaries.

Neoreaction has a close relationship with traditionalism, which upholds social obligations, norms, some degree of group conformity/homogeneity, and so on. Neoreaction has libertarian qualities, such as advocating for a smaller government and the exclusion of government from traditionally private spheres, but rejects libertarianism overall.

Libertarianism, if it could work at all, would only be suitable for a portion of the population, maybe 15-20%, who are willing to go Galt and lock themselves in a metaphorical fortress against the world. If a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold, libertarians seem not to care. Meanwhile, reactionaries foster community, family, and social cohesion. A couple months ago, I stated, “The “socialism” that traditionalism advocates is family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” That sums up the reactionary position on mutual assistance, which is theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism as it is in fact lived and practiced. Also, reactionaries tend to view libertarians as excessively materialistic.

For a final tidbit of food for thought on this one, someone on Twitter said, “if you took libertarianism but made the basic social unit the family rather than the individual you would come close to what neoreaction is”. Debatable, but interesting.

6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

Democracy has been a disaster. Read Democracy: the God That Failed for an explanation. If you have not read at least some of this book, you will be lost. At the very least, reading some of it will give you exposure to serious academic discourse on the failure of democracy. Dismissing anything anti-democratic as “fascism” simply marks you as an idiot, a man of no intellectual depth. At least people like Scott Alexander are capable of going a little deeper and providing a defense of democracy that avoids relying on the fascist boogeyman.

That’s it.

I considered including “opposition to the Cathedral,” here, but decided to leave it out since “Cathedral” is just a lame neologism to outsiders, and I want my posts to be digestible by normal people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought. Also, the question of what the Cathedral is, exactly, is a very complicated one.

I limit the premises to six because I want them to be definitional and exhaustive — anyone who does agree with all six of these premises is almost certainly a reactionary, or at least on the Far Right, while anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary. We have to draw the line somewhere. Having in-groups and out-groups is another premise of reactionary thought.

(Emphasis original)

Michael Anissimov, More Right (via archive.is) 16 Comments [1/16/2018 12:13:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Pharaoh Bastethotep

I considered including “opposition to the Cathedral,” here, but decided to leave it out since “Cathedral” is just a lame neologism to outsiders, and I want my posts to be digestible by normal people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought. Also, the question of what the Cathedral is, exactly, is a very complicated one.

Long story short: It's intellectuals holding progressive values.

1/16/2018 12:33:03 AM

Indicible

If Reaction/Neoreaction is against anything, it is against equality. If someone argues for equality, they are not a reactionary/neoreactionary, but something else.


Cool. Then I consider reactionaries as a piece of feces to be brushed away.
Bloody idiots do not even understand that equality of rights is not uniformity. Everybody has the same basic rights, but is free to exercise them as they want. Everybody should also have equal opportunities, because it is a loss of potential if they don"t. It may be hard to attain, but it is an objective, an ideal, something to strive for, whereas reactionaries only have one ideal: that nothing moves, that nothing chages, in effect that everything stays dead.

Right is right and left is wrong.


Nope. Right and left are wrong, because the moment you join a movement without thinking critically (which means that there are always points of dogma that you do not share), you relinquish a part of your freedom.

In general, hierarchy promotes stability, order, direction, cohesion, and so on. Reactionaries object to the rigid hierarchies of totalitarianism, which turn men into cogs in a machine.


For all their objections reactionaries seem to get along with fascists pretty well (see Pétain, see Miklaus Horthy...).
Also, reactionaries could be drones of Jiggalagg (god of order in the Elder Scrolls, mirror face of Sheogorath, god of madness). They want order above all, as if the order they advocate was anything other than the consolidation of past privileges.

Conversely, if a man chooses to stay home and raise children, many other men will think less of him. No amount of progressive propaganda and reeducation camps will change this, because it’s hard-coded into our brains through millions of years of evolution. Men respect other men who go out into the world and do masculine things.


And it speaks volume that we do not seem to be able to outgrow that part of our evolutionary process. Humanity has outgrown many things, this is just one more. But reactonaries do not want humanity to grow, they want it in stasis.

Women are less happy today than they were 40 years ago, despite all the alleged advances made by feminism during that time


Citation direly needed.

So, in essence, the OP wants order and does not see that the order he desires was, in itself, the product of an evolution. Humanity did not become the dominant species on Earth (for better or worse) by stagnating, the way reactionaries want it to. What reactionaries desire is that everybody becomes Amish. I invite them to retire to Amish country and then shut up when they come back whining that they got their arse kicked after criticising the leader of the community.

1/16/2018 1:20:42 AM

Malingspann

Michael Anissimov: "This way of things makes ME one of the upper class, the priviliged, the ones with the most freedom! And that's the way I likes it!"

1/16/2018 2:56:00 AM

Prager

As long as Michael is in the highest category, he's not going to have any issues. But the moment he slips into one of the lesser categories, he's going to be up in arms against the system.

1/16/2018 3:45:41 AM

Swede

Principle of Reactionary Thought

1. It was better in the Old Days, when women knew their place.
2. See point 1

Things which are different can still be equal, dolt.

Right is to the right of left, and left is to the left of right. That is all.
You can have order with a left-wing system too, and have chaos with a right-wing.

So, you want stability, order, direction and cohesion, but not too much of it?
Or do you only want others (the masses) to be cogs in machines, not you yourself?

Yup, we have trouble distinguishing, as the reactionary had little or no problem with the Nazis and Fascists in Germany and Italy last time.

Not all natural leaders are born by influential parents. Some of those are not given the chance to be the leaders they naturally are.



We’re not the rabid ones; you are. We are just saying that women are people too. You refuse to see that.
All ordinary people used to be farmers of some sort, or blacksmiths, cobblers, jobs where others come to you.
It’s not the working at home that’s the problem, dolt. It’s the not being allowed to work outside the home that's the problem.

Sitting at an office desk on a computer all day is just as female as it is male; secretaries have been doing it for decades. It’s much more worthwhile to raise children than to dig ditches.

So, suddenly it’s NOT as worthwhile to raise children?

Some amount of progressive propaganda DOES change that. In Sweden, parents have 16 months paid parental leave per child. Each parent has three months that is locked to him or her, and can’t be given to the other parent. No-one is thinking less of men who stay home and engage in their children. (Though a lot of men take this leave when it’s Olympic Games, World Cups, etc.)

I was a woman (alright, a girl) 40 years ago. I’d say the amount of happiness is fairly stable. We have more technology helping us now, but we socialize less in person. Thought with the technology, we can socialize with people hundreds of miles away.
No, feminism is a movement for women and men, with or without children. Kindergarten and paid parental leave help women have both children AND a career. Feminism also works for men to be able to engage in their children, thereby forming strong functional families.

No, we do not need to do away with democracy. Every other system we’ve tried are much, much worse. Sure, there are other forms of dictatorship than fascism, but none of the others are good either. I have yet to find any intellectual depth in you, Mikey-boy.

Are there people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought? Any-one older than 15, that is? Certainly everyone in the US has been exposed to Reaganomics, and the UK had its Thatcherism which probably isn’t completely wiped away yet.

Thank the heavens I don’t agree with any of them. I’m still left-wing socialist. Phew!

1/16/2018 3:47:01 AM

Bob Dole

For anyone not in the know this is the NRxer who basically tried to burn the rest of his movement down for reasons that don't really make sense.

1/16/2018 5:35:48 AM

Doubting Thomas

Is this the Republican Party platform?

1/16/2018 6:45:55 AM

Kanna

-----Principles of Reactionary Thought

”Reactionary" groups don't operate within the bounds of a catechism.

-----1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.

So everyone in your group has to reject equality...uh...equally?

-----2. Right is right and left is wrong.

As long as you are using "right/left" as you define it in this moment of time.

-----3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.

Agreed. Oh, you thought YOU were going to be on top of the hierarchy? No, y'see, that's why you are trying to create your own tiny little subset, because you will never be on top in any existing hierarchy.

----4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.

Of course, for the women who exist today, freedom and equality and self-determination ARE tradition.

-----5. Libertarianism is retarded.

Is "retarded" used here a verb or an adjective? Or just an objective?

-----6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

Who needs to do away with it, "we the people"?

Now go back and rethink this childish little list.

1/16/2018 7:53:19 AM

WhiteNoise

Can we just drop the pretense and call these people Fascists, or Neo-Theocracy followers, or whatever?

"Reactionaries" sounds like they're somewhere within the range of sanity.

1/16/2018 11:20:20 AM

Pharaoh Bastethotep

@WhiteNoise:
Er, have you never heard that term before? Because reactionaries have never been anywhere even be remotely close to sanity.

1/16/2018 11:22:29 AM

Alencon

1. Equality, within the confines of politics and society, refers only to rights. Obviously there are always going to be physical, emotional and intellectual differences.

2. If it had been left up to the right wing Nog would never have been allowed to bring that fire thing into the cave.

3. Yes, in most circumstances it is. But the questions become (1) what dictates the hierarchy and (2) is the disparity between the top and the bottom of the hierarchy reason?

4. Yes, they are as long as we recognize that those roles should be flexible and that sometimes someone may not fit into a binary pattern and that they should be accepted on their own terms.

5. First you have to do a better job defining what you mean by "libertarianism."

6. True, now all we have to do is come up with something better. Lots of luck with that one.

1/16/2018 12:52:40 PM

Anon-e-moose

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea




Enjoy your paradox.



Especially if you're essentially saying that the 'Great Experiment' has failed. It certainly has since 20th January 2017: so if you want to hand over the US back to us, far be it from me to stop you...!

6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it


The above officially opens what is the modern basis of Democracy: Parliament, every year. Like I say: if you want to hand the US back to us...!

5. Libertarianism is retarded


Nige FaRAGE has essentially said that what he wanted all along: 'Brexit' was a bad idea, and isn't averse to having a second referendum.

2. Right is right and left is wrong


Here is someone who proves you wrong...:



...and Nige FaRAGE.

1/16/2018 3:13:06 PM

Alicia

Democracy is flawed (I should be dictator for life), equality is nonsense (I am the best) and hierarchy is good (everybody do what I say).

What? You said it yourself!

1/17/2018 6:06:53 AM

Pink Jackboots

>We reject equality in all its forms.


1/17/2018 9:57:33 AM

SpukiKitty

A whole lotta words just to say, "I wanna be a Saturday morning cartoon villain".

1/21/2018 3:07:14 AM

KingOfRhye

From Wikipedia:

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term (egalitarianism) has two distinct definitions in modern English:[5] either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social and civil rights;[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power.


I ain't quite enough of a socialist to go with that second definition, but the first one is what most of us are talking about when we're talking about equality or egalitarianism. They don't seem to understand that. And if democracy is so obviously flawed, you'd think he could at least summarize some of the reasons, not just tell us "read so-and-so book"...

1/21/2018 6:11:26 AM

1 | top: comments page