Where Neoreaction Should Have Gone: Anti-Formalism Against Dark Organization

Neoreaction basically offered two ideas which arose most likely from Samuel Huntington’s The Clash Of Civilizations And The Remaking Of World Order: patchwork, or officialized balkanization, and formalism, which is a libertarian principle taken to its extreme hybridized with the Fascist idea of government as a corporation.

However, it probably should have gone further after that, and instead of viewing the world through an economic lens, viewed it through an informational one. That is: we exist in constant memetic warfare, with culture wars the norm, as a species which is trying to produce its first enduring civilization after many have burned out. There is new ground to cover there.

In information science, we apply economic principles to the change in information that details patterns in our world. As such, we think more in terms of which ideas create momentum and win out, and how this changes the filters humans use to perceive the world, than the downstream of that, which is economics which is guided by human preference.

This leads us to an analysis of information monopoly as a way of locking ideas into civilization, and the context of this in herd dynamics which are divided between oblivion and stampede:

The notion of “radical monopoly” plays an important role in Illich’s critique of professionalism:

A radical monopoly goes deeper than that of any one corporation or any one government. It can take many forms. When cities are built around vehicles, they devalue human feet; when schools preempt learning, they devalue the autodidact; when hospitals draft all those who are in critical condition, they impose on society a new form of dying. Ordinary monopolies corner the market; radical monopolies disable people from doing or making things on their own. The commercial monopoly restricts the flow of commodities; the more insidious social monopoly paralyzes the output of nonmarketable use-values. Radical monopolies . . . impose a society-wide substitution of commodities for use-values by reshaping the milieu and by “appropriating” those of its general characteristics which have enabled people so far to cope on their own.

Professions colonize our imaginations; or as Michel Foucault (whom Illich’s language sometimes recalls—or anticipates) might have said, they reduce us to terms in a discourse whose sovereignty we have no idea how to contest or criticize.

In other words, society tends to formalism in the older definition, which means using explicit rules and procedures instead of being based in principle and the abilities of those who rule it. Each part of it, like every ethnic group, can be counted on to act in self-interest, which begins with seizing control and achieving monopoly.

Monopoly is not always bad… but usually, it is a path to entropy. When there is only one way to rise in a system, the conditions imposed by that method take the place of reality itself, and so a feedback loop begins that drives that dialogue farther from reality and more into the terms of the system.

Formalism creates dark organization in this way. By removing incentives from real-world results and defining them in terms of the system instead, it encourages manipulation of the system, and “inverts” all definitions and goals to reflect individual human needs instead of the goals of civilization, principle, meaning, purpose, future, past and other abstract intangibles.

If Neoreaction had understood formalism in this manner, it would have understood what a disaster formalism actually is, and instead advanced formalism a general theory of not entrusting power to any self-interested groups whose self-interest does not reward the self-interest of the civilization itself, and through that, its human ecosystem and its members.

Tags: , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Where Neoreaction Should Have Gone: Anti-Formalism Against Dark Organization”

  1. Guest says:

    Neo-reaction failed because, by fearing being tainted with impurity, it closed itself to an exclusive circle of thinking.
    They suffered from the Echochamber syndrome, willingly.
    This is unfortunately the archetype of the pretentious leftist “intellectual”, only focused on the discourse and on opinions, never leaving the shelter to fight and be challenged – which is a shame, because if challenged, Neo-Reaction would be the Kurgan Indo-European, destroying everything on its path with unparalleled might, and building empires after the purge.

    What the “Alt-Right” or the new “White Nationalist” (or, broadening, “Ethnic Nationalists”, but never “Civic Nationalists” which are just Cucks, Globalists at A Nation’s level, not ALL Nation’s) are doing is becoming the well-known Insane and Rabid Beast, which has been displaced from its territory, hunted, mistreated, injured and cornered to the point where it MUST fight, because not fighting is death, there’s no escape anymore, there’s no breathing air, no prospect of isolation, no way of disassociating with the problems or any other possible way out really – only fighting.

    And because of that, this movement, and not Neo-Reaction, will become the new Kurgan.

    • The beast that must fight is not as convincing as the aristocratic beast which wishes to create beauty. Otherwise, I mostly agree, with the addition that Neoreaction was never intended to be anything more than an intellectual salon for post-Leftist thought. As with libertarianism, of which Neoreaction is a post-Huntingtonian variety, it fails when taken literally but is also a component of any sane thinking. Those who deny market forces will find themselves destroyed. Neoreaction however denies cultural forces indirectly, and so would replay the Civil War in many small conflicts if applied literally.

  2. I see the problem was simply that the left had the power because it had what seemed to be true. Socialism seemed to be the wave of the future. To me it seems that the left has lost the intellectual and moral high ground. It will just take time until people see this. Sure in universities Left wing drivel is still taught but that is changing. And even the philosophy departments are changing for the better.

    • I see the problem was simply that the left had the power because it had what seemed to be true. Socialism seemed to be the wave of the future.

      Or at least: what seemed to be winning, and people like to bet on a horse that makes them money. I agree here. History does as well: since The Enlightenment,™ it has been clear that popularity won out over common sense, since everyone knew what happened in Athens.

      To me it seems that the left has lost the intellectual and moral high ground. It will just take time until people see this.

      The wave is just beginning. The 2-5% who do 90% of everything — or at least make 90% of the important choices — in our society are turning away from the Left, not directly but on the periphery. We can see this in diverse places like scientific research, literature and film. This implies a wave of which Trump/Farage are the crest.

      • Poolside at the Decline says:

        Unless the choke hold that the Progressive Left has on Academia (and I include secondary & elementary education) is broken soon, the long march back from the brink of western cultural destruction will be much longer and slower… and possibly too little too late to turn it around.

  3. AntiDem says:

    NRx willed itself into irrelevance through an overdose of the black pill. Embracing passivism was a huge mistake and a shocking failure of imagination, and I damn well told them all so at the time. You *never* know what’s going to happen tomorrow, so you *never* take any option completely off the table. They went all in on the Benedict Option, took activism off the table, and ended up getting utterly blindsided by the Trump Revolution. This made them all look like a bunch of damn fools, and rightly so.

    Let me make clear that I don’t think Trump is the Savior of Western Civilization™, but he is a huge game-changer, and his ascendance to the Presidency shows that the black pill is as stupid and self-defeating as the blue pill is.

    • They went all in on the Benedict Option, took activism off the table, and ended up getting utterly blindsided by the Trump Revolution.

      We find ourselves caught between the Benedict Option and the Boromir Strategy, looking for a middle path.

      I agree with this analysis however, and would only like to point out that Neoreaction was probably always designated as a thought-experiment and vocabulary for talking about a post-liberal future. Patchwork in reality is nonsense, as the example of the CSA shows us. The herd will simply take over, and if those small nations are nuclear, humanity will quickly end in a chain-reaction of city-erasing thermonuclear blasts.

      Trump/Farage are the crest of the wave, which is the cultural revolution we have all desired. This revolution can screw up many ways, but only one fundamental way: by refusing to go deep enough, and recognize that its goal is not solely to defeat liberalism, but to restore Western Civilization, which has collapsed.

      • I see any kind of wavering about Trump as a bad thing. Rather I think he continues to deserve support and respect on all fronts.

        • I agree, but think we should also realize that Trump/Farage are the crest of a wave, not the wave itself, and that the wave is cultural and must express itself in multiple dimensions including but not limited to politics.

          • Poolside at the Decline says:

            “Trump/Farage are the crest of a wave, not the wave itself, and that the wave is cultural”
            ———
            Yes, politics is downstream from culture. So it is axiomatic that the institutions which are perceived to reflect the culture (and by doing so create and reinforce it), namely academia, dominant social media platforms & publications, and Hollywood, which are currently dominated by the Progressive agenda got us to where we are today and seek to keep us there culturally.

            If we wish the politics to change/revert, we must change/revert the culture. And that happens by taking controll of the large cultural influencers mentioned above.

            Without the culture, the politics are lost. It took 50 years of dedicated, relentless effort by the Progressive Left to get to the culture we have today. I see no reason to think it will not take another 50 years of dedicated, relentless, focused, effective effort to turn this culture around.

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>