Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did


The problem with Leftism is that it has a parent philosophy, and that can appear in any form, especially that which claims to be anti-Leftist. This is what did in white nationalism, and now what will end Neoreaction as any form of actual revolution.

I identified Crowdism, or collectivized individualism, as the root of human decline. It is the challenge of society: how to keep people from placing self-interest above the interests of society as an organic whole, which is different from the interests of society as a collective, whose primary goal is to keep the group together.

A healthy society operates through no universal methods, but several general principles, and these become adapted in many specific ways. One way is culling. Any successful society has internal gatekeepers who drive out the people of lower moral standards, ability and behavior or those who are merely genetically incompatible. The sane form of this is exile; the insane form is either not doing it, or going to the other extreme with The Holocaust™ or some other horrific pogrom.

Crowdism is based in the fear of the individual of this culling and also, of being insufficient according to the social standards needed for society to be cooperative. A cooperative society works toward a goal through its moral principles. Crowdists want a society that is forced to accept everyone, thus forced to validate every behavior, and therefore presents zero risk to the individual but also grants them the benefits of participation. Anarchy with grocery stores.

Over time, the parasites become bolder and demand unions, the welfare state, diversity and other means of camouflaging bad behavior and ensuring that the incompetent are rewarded just as much as the competent. This pathology appeals to the fear in all of us of being incompetent, insufficient, un-cool, etc. Like most human expectations however it backfires horribly and instead benefits the parasitic while driving out the normal.

As I have said many times on this blog, you either have the best rule the rest, or the rest rule over the best, to catastrophic results.

In the past, I have warned Neoreaction that it veers too close to become a Leftist-style ideology because Neoreaction has come to include the principles of collectivized individualism. Any time you find yourself arguing that there is a “system” which will manage people and come to good results, you have left behind the fundamental distinction of Dark Enlightenment societies: they believe in hierarchies and moral codes, and therefore, they select the morally best as leaders.

The temptation to make Neoreaction an ideology like Leftism is totally understandable of course. Leftism is powerful. But the most likely form of its failure comes from it being absorbed from within by Leftism, much as I argue that white nationalism became fundamentally Lefty just as National Socialism did. These systems fail because in the guise of getting beyond modernity, they affirm modernity.

As has been said on this blog many times before, the dividing line is equality. If you think all people are morally the same and can be managed by external incentives and rewards, you are a Leftist. If you think we should pick the best people and let them have free reign under a few general principles, then you are an organicist, a realist and most likely a conservative.

I want to clarify that I do not target any specific voices in Neoreaction, but the gestalt here. I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but a general misinterpretation because it is the most likely interpretation one would take if one is coming from a democratic, egalitarian time. We know only what we have experienced, and it is natural to interpret new data through that filter, but in the case of Neoreaction, it turns it into moderate democrats who want gated communities for whites.

White Nationalism failed because it went the way of Leftist ideology, which — as people never tired of reminding me — made it popular and thus powerful. It was easy to get a group of people together on the idea that Negroes and Jews have destroyed white culture, where the more nebulous concepts of civilization decline, individual moral caliber and Deep Ecology that I pursue tend to confuse and alienate people (much like my personality). But growing popular only to become what you hate and fear is not victory, but self-destruction. Western civilization has been doing too much of that lately for my taste, and by “lately” I mean the past four thousand years or so…

Enough of my curmudgeon ranting. I will add to this post some excerpts of an excellent rant made by Atavisionary:

This work as Atavisionary eventually got the attention of Hestia society. Hestia of course also founded social matter and the future primeval. Though keep in mind that my subreddit, /r/darkenlightenment, is actually older than Hestia. Hestia was formed after the breakdown of the website moreright (which occurred well after I started the sub). You can google this to find out more information, but briefly Mike Anisimov acted with impropriety on twitter and the rest of the blog writers on moreright decided to publicly excommunicate him and branch off. Before they announced hestia, however, I had already created and I tangentially addressed the issue. That was written prior to any direct contact with the writers or ex-writers of moreright. Mike may have instigated the mess and my discussion, but I spent no more than a paragraph discussing internal drama of reaction then moved on to abstractions. You may have noticed a similarity in my modding policy. Attack the argument, not the person. Their decision with respect to Mike was probably warranted in my opinion, but frankly that had nothing to do with me so I won’t comment further. Now I am also suffering a similar ex-communication. However, I am actually the 4th person this has happened to that I am aware of and there may be more. First was Mike of course, then there was NIOreaction who I think now writes under reactionaryfuture, then there was Reed Perry who used to regularly write for social matter, and now me. This is starting to feel like a pattern.

…I won’t go into too many details, save two, but my major problem with “official” neoreaction is that they are far too secretive and far too timid. The main cause of our falling out has a lot to do with their loathing of transparency. Both in the current situation and while I was still on the slack. Prior to recent events, I had already started to distance myself from hestia. It has already been several months since I deleted my slack account but before that the very first major rift between us came when I found this white nationalist hit piece article which attacks moldbug and wolf tivy/warg franklin. Warg is one of the head people of hestia, and you can see he was on the email thread linked below. I posted this link in the private slack because, well, it is a bit of a concern if one of the main “leaders” of neoreaction is a literal cuckold. Their response was to remove the link and any comment referring to it. And this wasn’t just my comments, it was a number of people on the slack who were censored. Keep in mind this was a private chat room, not a public forum, so striesanding probably wasn’t going to happen. And wouldn’t have happened now if hestia didn’t continue to make one poor decision after another. Needless to say, I was pretty miffed by this action and it along with a number of other disagreements led to me leaving slack. It is clear from that experience, however, that the allegations against Warg in the above hit piece are absolutely true, and following hestia means following a cuck. It is hard to say what kind of skeletons the other “leaders” of hestia have in their closets. It is also clear that the “leadership” doesn’t have any plan for dealing with this unfortunate history, and prefer censorship to proper strategizing.

…Believe it or not, a large portion of the Hestia society lives and works in New York City. Well they certainly live up to the stereotypes people have about New Yorkers. They have a very inflated sense of self importance.

The short of it is they are far too willing to mislead those who might listen to them, such as the community we have built here on /r/darkenlightenment. Even among those who are sympathetic to them (like me) they take a very high and mighty attitude, which is why you are learning about this today. Worst of all, they have absolutely no respect for the /r/darkenlightenment community. They don’t even want to give you a decent description of their meetup group. They don’t even have any respect for me who has spent two years and a lot of work building and moderating this community. I won’t lie, I am still in awe that they so steadfastly refused to follow such a simple and longstanding rule. I can’t understand why they think they shouldn’t have to follow the rules of my community. No sensible organization with any sort of decent leadership would have pointlessly risked alienating a major ally like hestia so carelessly has in this case. It is clearly a symptom of poor leadership.

From what I understand, part of their reluctance to provide any information whatsoever is that they literally take compartmentalization as a religion there. They aren’t trying to form an organic community, they are trying to recreate a spy agency secrecy state.

The whole thing is worth reading. Obviously I have been deficient in linking to people like Atavisionary and AntiDem in the past, but I am seeing a new wing of intelligent and realistic commentators out there who are concerned with practical leadership. This seems like a good direction toward which NRX and related intellectual movements can orient themselves to avoid the pitfall of Leftist assimilation from within.

Ultimately what afflicts the West is a leadership void, which is what egalitarianism always creates.

In regards to the above, I think it is essential to ask (as always) what is cause and what is effect. In my view, the cause of much of Neoreaction’s internal squabbling is the inevitable tendency of people in democratic times to take democratic interpretations of new ideas, which is why I cluster more with Fred Nietzsche and Michel Houellebecq, who in two books have said more and reached more people than online movements ever will.

As far as what it all means, it is this: the truth is not hidden. Few seek it, and most spend their time trying to hide it further, so that they can act with impunity toward whatever ends they have while enjoying the benefits of civilization. This creates a society of as many directions as people, and it pulls itself apart and then regroups around a lower standard, which is how third-world societies occur. All of human history is basically one great big temper tantrum by the toddler herd while a few sensible people try to restrain them from acting in ways that are ultimately self-destructive.

So it goes.

I wish Neoreaction luck in overcoming this disease. It has slain many in the past. I wonder why so many of us feel the cold shoulder from other bloggers, activists, etc.; is it because they dislike us, or because they want to compete with us instead of doing their own thing? The typical human pattern is that the group standardizes on a mean and excludes the outliers. But here at Amerika, we are forever outliers, because we do not trust the mean.

Tags: , , , ,

31 Responses to “Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did”

  1. thordaddy says:

    One can’t really attack (universal) “equality” UNLESS he can conceive such a thing as anti-(objective) Supremacy. And because all that “we” write in terms of politics, economics, religion and so forth are written within the context of the white race, when one ATTACKS (universal) “equality,” he is ACTUALLY attacking anti-white Supremacy… He is attacking those who attack those white men seeking objiective Supremacy. Which does not then make himself a genuine white Supremacist, but certainly renders him very illiberal AND TRUE ENEMY of the zeitgeist.

    The reality is that the anti-white Supremacist IS THE MESSAGE… His very being is the diabolical dogma. To take the cuckservative position of attacking the argument and not the person means you have conceded defeat when “we” are discussing anti-wS.

    The truly intelligent whites SHOULD now “see” convergence… A land of anti-wS in rapid descent… A lifetime of “education” in anti-wS… A relentlessly applied barrage of anti-wS selective pressure coming from all directions.

    But nope…

    That doesn’t mean conversion to wS.

    Total fail of the high IQ class of “white” males.

  2. thordaddy says:

    All that we write are written
    Oh, I must be smitten
    With radical autonomy
    Of a language need fixin’
    Its ghastly that rigidity
    Just to spite fluidity
    All that we write are written
    I must need fixin’…

  3. Well said.

    Also, check out Atavisionary’s new book: Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

    A lot of time, energy, and academic stonewalling. Hope it succeeds.

  4. JPW says:

    Sadly, the Cuck-Reactionary is born. Just after I thought I’d found refuge fromt he Cuckservative. What a shame, what a shame, what a shame*

    *-HT: The Cat In The Hat

  5. ChevalierdeJohnstone says:

    I suggest the most successful civilization in history was early-mid medieval Christian Europe. That of factual history, not the popular misunderstanding of it.
    This society operated not by finding moral men and placing them in authority, which I would say is impossible to do in practice, as one cannot demonstrate moral leadership without first being a leader.
    That society instead chose men to lead and expected them to be moral. The key to this civilization’s success was a social principle by which the aristocracy were encouraged to behave morally.

    • Dualist says:

      Both yourself and Avraham are correct. The High middle ages, 1050-1250, were the only time in European history when the pillars of aristocracy, culture and trade actually worked in unity. This is because it is the only time when they were unified under a single Transcendental philosophy, in this case Christianity.

      Before 1050 an aristocrat was seldom other than an illiterate, psychopathic bully. There had been a handful of exceptions such as Alfred and Charlemagne but, as you will see, they only strengthen the subsequent argument. Forget Chivalry – the concept simply didn’t exist before then.

      They may have all paid lip-service to their sole Duty of protecting the peasantry, but what they extracted from them in return was often enough to reduce their serfs to beggary. When waging war against their enemies, they thought nothing of burning whole villages and cornfields, peasants being wholly expendable. Before 1100, the famous jousting tournament actually involved gangs of armed men chasing each other over vast swathes of often-cultivated lands, hacking and hewing as they went; mortal injury was common. Summer holidays for those noble Norse, famous for their honour, solely consisted of pillaging and murdering unarmed peasants and monks. The bishops and abbots were no better, being normally relatives of the king, who would fight for the riches their benefices brought them.

      Being an aristocrat involved no duty to IMPROVE society. Anybody who thinks this model of aristocracy is what we need is probably a weak little omega-male who could one ever be a Viking in his daydreams.

      Intellectual life had withered away along with Rome. A landed military aristocracy had no time for the classical literary culture of the Senators, and even if they COULD read, practically all of the classics had been lost, including Aristotle. There WAS sometimes mini-renaissances during the dark ages, with men like John Scotus Eriugena even cultivating Greek learning in windswept Ireland, but this was always lost soon later in the next round of violence.

      But these savages had a rival, a body that reminded them they had duties other than warfare, and reminding them they had a Lord whose writ ran everywhere and whose Judgment was inescapable. After the great Benedictine and Cluniac Reform movements, abbots were once again Holy men, much more respected than the worldy bishops, who poured their energies into cultivating high culture once again. 1050-1150 was the great age of stone-keep building, but the Church was also busy building it’s own bulwarks against this martial culture, reminding men there were ideals even higher than dominance and worldy power: the cathedrals and abbeys ie. the greatest artworks of all time. Any visit to one of these reminds the Modern just how far we have FALLEN since then.

      The Universal Church was not against hierarchy, quite the opposite. Indeed, the nascent, beautiful Feudal system could be seen as a conscious effort to replicate the Celestial Hierarchy on Earth. But it tirelessly reminded the aristocrats that true Nobility was not identical to bellicosity.

      From (roughly) 1050, as soon as the Papacy had gained sufficient power and the Reform movement was in full swing, the Church tried Her hardest to limit the truly oppressive aspects of the aristocracy. Crucially, only from this point onwards was society itself sufficiently Christianised to cause a change in its direction. From now on, through relentless preaching and exegesis, warfare and tournaments were considered sacrilege on an ever-increasing number of days of the calendar. The enslavement of fellow-Europeans became increasingly less common. Many churchmen, such as St Bernard, tried to prevent the regular, shameful pogroms against the Jews. All the great aspects of Aristocracy were retained, while its evil aspects became less and less common.

      Without firing an arrow, using only the threat of excommunication at most, the church ushered in the age of true Chivalry. In 1024, during a meeting of knights it was declared:

      ”I shall not attack a cleric or monk who is not carrying a secular weapon, nor a man of their squad if he is not carrying a lance nor shield. I shall not take away an ox, cow, pig, sheep, lamb or goat, nor shall I take a donkey or the bundle it carries, or the mare or her unweaned foal. I shall not seize any peasant, man or woman, any sergeant-at-arms or merchant. I shall neither take their deniers, nor force them to pay ransom. I shall not ruin them by extorting all that they possess on the pretext that their lord is at war.”

      All of these evil acts were inevitably common in a world were one group of men possessed all the weapons but their was no earthly force to oppose them. The Church forced warriors to acknowledge a Power infinitely superior to themselves Whom they could not fight nor escape. God’s peace replaced the king’s peace. An aristocracy without Christianity makes having bands of uncultured predators preying on the weak a likely outcome.

      And what were the longer-term consequences of all this? I would love to write about the great reawakening of philosphy and art during the 12th century and trace it’s development to Aquinas, Ockham, Duns Scotus, and the Gothic, but I’ll leave that for another day. Sufficient to say, after 600 years of stagnation before 1050, a mere 250 years later the world was already in the labour-pangs of the Renaissance.

      • Keith Erick Fix says:

        Charlemagne was illiterate, or nearly so, and remained so his entire life. He did manage to learn some additional languages, and he did encourage literacy, but never managed that himself.

  6. jsmith says:

    So what should those of us on the Alt Right make of Nick Land’s vicious attacks against low status whites?

    [Edit: no doxxing please.]

    • thordaddy says:

      What you should make of “it” is that as Final Liberation rapidly approaches for all, those actually closest to the abyss demand immediate answers from the most intelligent…

      Nick Land must show his disgust IN ORDER TO HIDE a lack of real world solution. The intelligent have no real answers for the destitute and despairing.

      • Nick Land must show his disgust IN ORDER TO HIDE a lack of real world solution.

        As I understand it, he is into the arcology movement — the idea that people will create planned communities which are not part of the current nation-state system. He writes very convincingly on the topic.

  7. avraham says:

    I definitely agree with that comment up above that talks about early medieval Europe. There was something definitely special going on then. The question then is how to deal with the problem that such an society entailed. How to combine it with the better aspects of the Enlightenment? My suggestion is at least a re-emphasis on the great books of the time. For Christianity that would be Anselm Aquinas and Augustine and the other philosophers of that period. Also classical education with was the basic books of Aristotle on Logic plus the few others books from late Rome–Boethius.

    Personally I feel there is a lot to gain from both the Mediaeval period and the Renaissance. Especially I happen to like Kant quite a lot.

  8. avraham says:

    I wanted to mention that Ayn Rand’s approach had a similar kind of problem. The libertarian movement has a large % of kooks though it has somewhat sturdy intellectual foundations.

  9. Cryptogenic says:

    I was never under the impression that NRx aspired to be “revolutionary.”

  10. Different T says:

    Both Rand, libertardianism, and MM’s patchwork attempt the “big handwaving;” violence (including their personal definitions of fraud) is bad but anything else goes. Then they all make the leap that such an arrangement leads to assortative groupings and conflict is *somehow* decreased.

    “This society operated not by finding moral men and placing them in authority, which I would say is impossible to do in practice, as one cannot demonstrate moral leadership without first being a leader.”

    A different perspective on this would place an emphasis on responsibility. This is a comment from a manosphere site discussing those “classic books.”

    The concepts developed in “the first set of books” regard how a society deals with individuals who do not have the capacity to survive or make good on the liabilities they incur, even though they depend on said credit. Primarily, this refers to women and children, though it also includes many developing males.

    In other words, credit is given to protect and provision for women because they are expected to bear children. Credit is given to developing males because they are expected to become materially productive assets capable of providing credit. Credit is given to children because they will grow to either bear children or become materially productive assets.

    It would not make sense to hold a homeless person responsible for the debt of a random female. The society or law could, but the debt would not be repaid. It would not make sense to hold a child responsible for procuring his next meal in a society with property rights. The society or law could, but the child would likely just die.

    The recognition that this credit is needed, led to the recognition that those mentioned may never “make good” on the liabilities they incur. Therefore, someone who is capable of making good on those debts or able to incur the loss themself (and not externalize it onto society as a whole), must be held liable. Men who have the assets and capabilities to pay them back.

    Further, because this credit is extended on the basis that those receiving it will grow to either bear children or become materially productive assets, certain rights where granted to those held liable.

    The SOP for the West in the past century or so has been to remove those bonds from males and place them with the State (ie. equality; the lack of a responsible party destroys the aforementioned right of the creditor and obligation of the debtor). Interestingly, this same process then creates the formalized creditor/debtor relationship between banks/State and their customers to a much larger degree as credit *must* still be sought due to the previously mentioned reality of life.

    As Brett likes to write about, “equality” has replaced “hierarchy” in nearly all aspects of Western life.

  11. Hoyos says:

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but here goes.

    Part of the problem is a failure to agree on a moral code. The default moral setting of civilization in its western form is some form of rigorous Christianity, at least for the past millennia or so.

    WNs failed, at least in part, because the motivation for their philosophy was, again partially, an attempt to explain the success of the West without reference to Christianity. Libertarianism has a similar problem in some quarters, and so does some NRx for that matter.

    Taking a “religion for the proles” so called “practical” attitude doesn’t really work either, because religion certainly wasn’t a prole only phenomenon in the West, that’s a progressive interpretation that confuses Roman tendencies with larger western ones.

    If you want to base a philosophy on a moral code, that moral code has to be agreed on and arise semi-organically. The only organic solution for western man is Christianity.

  12. jsmith says:

    Remember how National Review and
    Conservatism, Inc kept purging those to its right? Anyone too right wing was not a true conservative.

    And this led NRO Revolt and a backlash from the right against Conservatism, Inc and the GOPe.

    Well, the next backlash will be against Neoreaction for attacking the white working class in terms very similar to those of NR’s Kevin Williamson’s “the white working class must die.”

    This backlash, which is just getting underway, should be called NRxRevolt.

    First Target: Outside In.

    NRO = NRx as far as the white working class is concerned.

    Having no enemies to the Right would’ve been a good idea, but now it’s too late.

  13. avraham says:

    Libertarians were doing purges and only succeeded in getting rid of the talent and getting the nut cases. The question is whom do you purge?

    • Different T says:

      No, that really isn’t the question.

      The entire thesis of Libertards is that outlawing their definitions of fraud and violence somehow decreases conflict and increases assortative groupings.

      They (and this goes for MM patchwork as well) are too socially weak and too ideologically backwards to make value judgements (except for “What I define as violence/fraud is bad”).

      @ Hoyo and avraham

      We may just disagree on this very basic premise: Do you think the average American really believes in the Libertarian premise of “do anything you want if you don’t directly harm another person” as the definition of acceptable behavior.

  14. Ivar says:

    If the choice is between philosophy and power, at this moment in history I will choose power.

  15. avraham says:

    I think the average American believes in the Libertarian premise of “do anything you want if you don’t directly harm another person” as the definition of acceptable behavior.

    That maybe the problem. See Michael Huemer–a libertarian who criticizes Ayn Rand

    • Dualist says:

      That maxim is now the viewpoint of the majority of society. The problem with it is: there is no responsibility to improve things either, or even conserve the Good. So in behaving self-centredly, we may not harm another person directly, but we certainly harm society as a whole. Which then harms everybody.

      But this simple realisation involves three lines of reasoning, so is beyond most people.

      • Different T says:

        If you consider that the prevalent perspective, take it a step further. Do you think that your average liberal parent would be happy/indifferent if their child ended up on welfare, a singlemom/absentee dad, gay, trans, drug abuser, had an abortion, etc.

        • Dualist says:

          It’s the prevalent MORAL maxim. I didn’t say it was the only value that exists in modern society.

          People still, of course, lust after status. So they still value wealth, for one. A kid on benefits is a drop in status for both, so yes, that would concern them. Though I actually don’t think many liberals would care if their daughter had an abortion, certainly not for moral easons. Some may even be happy with the archliberalness of having a gay son (though some would secretly be saddened too, I suspect).

  16. avraham says:

    Philosophy nowadays is I admit a mess. The suggestion by one person of the Bible being the basis of Western Civilization makes sense to me.

  17. D says:

    Which specific books by Nietzsche and Houellebecq do you recommend?

    • From Houellebecq, I would be sure to read The Elementary Particles (“Atomised” in UK) and The Possibility of an Island. His latest, Submission, is essential as well. From Nietzsche, I would start with Ecce Homo and Genealogy of Morals. But you will not strike out with any work by these authors.

  18. jsmith says:

    @ Hoyos

    You might be interested in the work of Charles Peguy, January 7 1873 – September 5 1914) a noted French poet, essayist, and editor.

    He believed that medieval Christianity, which lasted over a thousand years, was the high point of Western civilization.

    Peguy is also discussed, and quoted (at length) in Houellebecq’s book, Soumission.

  19. Dualist says:

    I’ve only just heard of the Hestia Society. It sounds similar to what I suggested several months back, in having a single place where all the ‘Neoreactionary’ writers can get together to discuss strategy.

    When I made the suggestion, the only similar sites I had visited were here, Alt-Right, Occidental Observer (irregularly), and then the excellent Bruce Charlton (whom I became aware of after he commented here). I was unaware just how large some of the other rightist websites, such as TRS etc, actually were, however, which seemed encouraging. I soon found out very few of them are actually worth reading. A lot of the individual things they say are correct but, reading between the lines, many of their personalities leave a lot to be desired. This is actually the only site on which I comment.

    I was also not well up on the ideas of Mecius Moldbug. I have since become acquainted with his work. I am far from impressed. He heavily relies on his readers being even less learned than he himself is. Unluckily for him, I’ve forgotten more than he’s ever known, and I may well have to start heading over to his blog to explain to him why he’s wrong.

    I really wouldn’t worry too much about being involved with them, for now. I have yet to see an individual on the Alt-Right or Neoreaction who has any leadership qualities, so they will likely just chatter away for a year or two and then fall out over the viability of Neo-Agraro-Monarcho-Homo-Byzantiumism, or whatever’s the next Big Word.

    I get the impression that many of them are more concerned with making an online name for themselves than any real world plans. And we also have the likes of the dishonourable Richard Spencer, who pulled off his own little Night of the Long Knives Fantasy when he backstabbed Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell. I bet he thought he was being all fascist and pitiless, when actually he revealed to all that he is untrustworthy, cowardly and dishonourable.

    Just keep doing what you’re doing, for now, man.

  20. […] week, I warned that Neoreaction is following the Leftist model because people are attempting to officialize it to capture an audience, as I have warned of […]

  21. […] Reliance on the self creates individualists who then bond together into groups through a form of collectivized individualism known as […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>