MichaelAnissimov comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2014 12:44:00PM *  3 points [-]

That's not a historically or spatially universal "best"; it's not optimal. It's "the best we can do given the historical and geopolitical contingencies as they actually are right now." I don't think you even need transhumans or something to have non-ethnic states actually work, you just need to break out of the "Jihad vs McWorld" paradigm of geopolitics.

(Speaking of silly leftists, the man who wrote Jihad vs McWorld concentrated most of his ire on McWorld, since he was writing in the '90s and did not think jihad would become a severe problem. I think we can both say, on this one: what an idiot!

But the bigger question is: if he implicitly supported racial and religious chauvinist movements against capitalist globalization, does that make him, and by implication the entire left-wing "antiglobalization" movement of the '90s and 2000s, reactionary, or some other form of right-wing?

I would say, yes, at least in effect, in the same sense that "pacifism is objectively pro-fascist". You?)

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 01:41:07PM 1 point [-]

No, I think that's a disingenuous usage. I also don't understand how pacifism is "objectively pro-fascist".

In the book, he uses Jihad as a stand-in for traditional values everywhere, not just Islamic Jihad.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2014 02:00:42PM 3 points [-]

I also don't understand how pacifism is "objectively pro-fascist".

Google the phrase. Orwell wrote an essay on the matter.

In the book, he uses Jihad as a stand-in for traditional values everywhere, not just Islamic Jihad.

No, as a matter of fact, he uses it as a word for a new style of increasingly irrational chauvinist movements, not for "traditional values" in any sense that an ordinary conservative would recognize.

Of course, if you're willing to include Islamism in your term for neoreactionary traditional values... I'm willing to take this as further evidence that neoreaction is a terrible idea.

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 02:02:54PM 2 points [-]

Islam is certainly not neoreactionary, because neoreactionary refers to the descendants of a certain circumscribed intellectual group that developed from Moldbug in the Bay Area.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 22 November 2014 02:10:33PM 0 points [-]

So is merely not in theory...never mind about the practice.