Lumifer 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (616)

Comments (616)

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

Comment author: MichaelAnissimov 20 November 2014 06:16:06PM 1 point [-]

...

Read this.

You, and Moldbug, and advancedatheist, and every other neoreactionary are putting forward specific views of how society should be structured, specific views which is not merely "something other than the present arrangements". There may be a range of views in the nrsphere, but their doctrines are characterised by what they want, not by what they hate. They do a lot of the hating, to be sure, but they have a positive base of reasons for that.

Their doctrines are actually more characterized by what they dislike. As I said, NRx is a criticism first and foremost.

For example, monarchy and libertarian anarchy are incompatible with each other, and neither of them are Enlightenment structures (as "Enlightenment" is used by neoreactionaries). Are either or both of them compatible with or implied by neoreactionary principles? My reading of neoreactionaries suggests to me that monarchy is, and libertarian anarchy is not.

Some of the most prominent neoreactionaries are libertarian anarchists.

Comment author: SanguineEmpiricist 20 November 2014 06:52:47PM 1 point [-]

Yes, but being a wholly negative doctrine is still the "Dissent" in Dissenter. I think it is a mistake to be wholly negative, but that is a community discussion I suppose.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 21 November 2014 08:17:37AM *  1 point [-]

Their doctrines are actually more characterized by what they dislike. As I said, NRx is a criticism first and foremost.

Certainly there are far more neoreactionaries than those I have read, but those I have read, including the ones I just mentioned, are arguing for certain arrangements. Their animus towards the present is explicitly based on that. NRx, as I have seen it, is a criticism that explicitly bases itself, as you have done in this thread, on "certain traditional principles" which, to quote your Evola quote, "enjoy a perennial actuality". That is the core of neoreaction. As for the specifics of which cultures are held up as examples to emulate and which as examples to avoid, Moldbug primarily goes to recent centuries to show how things were done better in those days.

Some of the most prominent neoreactionaries are libertarian anarchists.

Perhaps they are, but they have so far not come to my attention.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit