Categorization

As anticipated, the organization of the Outside in blogroll is transforming itself from a mechanical task into an engaging cultural-political and philosophical problem. My sense is that people generally resolve this type of quandary on a fairly hasty, ad hoc basis, but it already seems too late to do that. There are legacy considerations, and intricacies of coalitional variety at stake. Ultimately, there is a question about the core significance of the term ‘neoreaction’ — Is it a mere rallying point, flung into prominence by arbitrary historical opportunity, or is it a dense concept, whose semantic components are to be scrupulously respected?

My temptation would be to tactically elude the word, in order to access a more flexible, differentiated terminology. What prevents me from doing so is the arrogant sense that I respect the word more than anyone else it is applied to. ‘Neoreaction’ is an inherently paradoxical, fissional term, splitting in-itself on a temporal axis. It follows that I am extremely reluctant to see it relegated to a mere categorical marker, employed to designate ideological tendencies whose substantial content is better — or more fully — explicated in other terms. The word Neoreaction declares, intrinsically, that it belongs to fissionalist time-junkies exploring historical dissociation. That’s what it says, irrespective of how it is used.

The problem of categorization, therefore, remains, indissolubly. Any suggestions?

October 24, 2013admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

27 Responses to this entry

  • J Says:

    I recommend against both “neo” and “reaction”.

    The art word is afflicted by terms like “modern”, “contemporary”, post-modern”, etc – each synonyms for “now” in the era they were coined. It speaks nothing for the actual values of the philosophy. It represents an inability to see beyond the immediate, speaking only for the now and lacking any historical context.

    “Reaction”, demands the question “to what?”. For it is not reaction for its own sake, but rather a reaction against an ideology.

    Alternative as words like “impressionist” and “stioic” have concrete meaning. While not descriptive, they precisely name the areas of thought they refer to.

    I’m not qualified to define “neoreaction”, but it seems to me it is the reaction against the decline, the collapse, of civilization which is brought about by embracing “post modern” lies, namely, 1) that truth is meaningless and can be “deconstructed” 2) equality, both interchangeability of genders and propensity for cultures to build (and maintain) civilizations.

    It is first and foremost a philosophy of truth over attractive illusions/lies.

    If it is “neo” anything, it is “neo Renaissance” a return to the original enlightenment – the values prevalent in Europe from 14 to 18th century. Primacy of western culture, rise of merchants, fall of states, piracy, colonialism.

    Objective truth.
    Objective beauty.

    “Objectivist” would be a good word were it not already taken.

    Perhaps “reconstrutivist” or “reconstrcutionary” is closest, as it attempts to rebuild civilization even while admitting it is powerless to stop the collapse. and because it opposes the post modern concept of “deconstruction”.

    I admit my ramblings are of little help in finding a good word. It is a difficult task.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    ‘Neorenaissance’ is indeed superb, but it seems more appropriate for an historical period than an ideological orientation.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    You have it all wrong. The rot started in the Enlightenment

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 4:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    Any suggestions?

    Yes, file everything alphabetically under “Miscellaneous”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Not provocative enough. Who’s going to start arguing about that?

    [Reply]

    Erik Reply:

    Sort by length. Make sure to use a variable-width, well-kerned font to give different lengths to names with the same amount of letters.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 4:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Karl F. Boetel Says:

    I kinda liked being the only entry under “More Scary.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Comforting as it would be to stick you back in the ‘Scary’ box, you’ve spread the scary around so much by now it wouldn’t do any good.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 9:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    My blogroll is much more messed up than yours. Aren’t you jealous?

    I have Bryce under “Libertarian-ish” AND “Traditionalists”. Mangan is under “Secular Reaction” (along with Foseti, Jim, Spandrell, etc.). I have you and Scharlach and _Raptros, Francis St. Pol, et al. under “Futurists”.

    I just don’t have a neoreaction heading.

    If the “neo-” doesn’t mean areligious, and it doesn’t mean high political theory, and it doesn’t mean post-libertarian, does it just mean “techno-futurist”? And would you put Jim and Foseti in THAT bucket?

    Obviously this isn’t about a (or anyone’s) blogroll. But if MM never needed “neo-” then why does anyone?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “But if MM never needed ‘neo-‘ then why does anyone?” — I don’t understand why this question is being so systematically ignored. Perhaps you’re weirdly positioned, with ‘neoreactionary’ chops but a distinctive lack of neoreactionary cultural desperation (or parallel oddities (which isn’t to zero-out your oddities, they’re just of a kind that don’t get tangled up obscurely with this word)).

    Anyway, whilst your remarks on this topic have been debonair (and easy to miss), they’ve been invaluable from my perspective. I suspect my solution will follow you at least in this — neoreaction insofar as it exists micro-publicly should be an emergent phenomenon, best stripped out of blogrolls as an explicit category.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 9:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • amosandgromar Says:

    Use plays a very large role in semantic divisions. Sub-dividing neoreaction endlessly until the number of bloggers who fit under that category becomes strikingly small isn’t useful -if- the goal is gaining steam/traction. It’s going to take a lot of coaxing already to get someone to explore this little theoretical world we’ve constructed–why make it harder? We’re all neoreaction, but obviously there can be sub-divisions -within- neoreaction, but not -without- neoreaction.

    That is: differing types of neoreaction, but all fit under neoreaction per se.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I agree, and absurdly trivial (technical) issues then come in — ‘Neoreaction’ is a long word, so specification is hard, NR I’m assuming is too cryptic. The sort of solution that I’m envisaging at the moment would dispense with the ‘Neoreaction’ tag in the sidebar and sub-divide in other, suggestive ways …

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 9:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    Amos & Gromar makes a substantial point. How is neoreaction used? Here’s an example I found by looking through the post previous to this one, which is also your own use:

    “The progressive assumption, which neoreaction contests, is that it is natural and good to spend the advances of civilization on causes unrelated to civilizational advance.”

    How is it being used here? If we consider NR as a kind of abstractive paradigm which looks at once to substantiate questions we previously were not able to articulate and to also provide them with an answer through the same methodology which engendered the question, then I think you will simply have to accept that my own project of social theory as manifest at my blog and in my book are prime examples of neoreaction, in addition to your own project and Moldbug’s (insofar as he still has a single coherent project in the works).

    Your attempt at splitting a hair here doesn’t have much to stand on, especially in reference to your own use of the word. I use the term similarly as above in my own writing as well.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If there weren’t substantial zones of agreement, this would be about coalition breaking, and purging, but that isn’t the issue at all (so relax). This is a productive discussion to be having. I’m confident it won’t end in a way you find annoying, even if the process is making you a little irritable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 24th, 2013 at 10:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    A Hammer.

    Progs are Nail.

    Think about it.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    So when you’re a nail, everything is a hammer trying to hit you?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Why would you not be a Hammer?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2013 at 12:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    I like Zhai2nan2’s take at Vulture of Critique. Neoreaction is to Reaction and Paleoreaction as Neoconservatism is to Conservatism and Paleoconservatism. With a very dominant ‘taken over by newcomers without the original motivation’ theme (the whole new secular pragmatic policy crowd vs. the old Christian Society group).

    Discuss ….

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Well, when you put it that way, they are strange bedfellows indeed… and yet when we reveal what our lying eyes tell us, there really isn’t much about which to disagree.

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    A good point Nick, as always.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2013 at 1:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I call myself a “neoreactionary” for the same reason that a homosexual group would call itself “Queer Nation”, or Nydwracu would call himself an “anarcho-fascist”, or someone else would call himself a “‘bite me’ conservative”. It is a calculated transgression or confrontation, a pre-emptive attack on anyone who attempts to use social status as a weapon against me.

    The “neo” prefix flags me as a busted libertarian, or at least, a busted something else. I am not a native-born reactionary. I am an ideological refugee or squatter, someone who undertook a Moldbug-like “sick journey”, if not from Mises to Carlyle, then at least from David Friedman to Henry Sumner Maine.

    Incidentally, I maintain an email list for people in my Unitarian Universalist church group who want to argue about the name, “Conservative Covenant Group”. No one really likes this name, but so far, I have successfully defended it as having precisely the right degree of transgressiveness. It’s a little bit passive aggressive: polite, yet guaranteed to stick slightly in the craw of the politically correct.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “The ‘neo’ prefix flags me as a busted libertarian, or at least, a busted something else.” — this is an important part of the definition (for when ‘neoreaction’ gets into the dictionary).

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    Nobody can find neoreaction ‘first’ as a teenager becoming politically and intellectually aware at this early stage of our game. But imagine the day when there is no ‘busted’ to flag. When there are neoreactionaries who began as neoreactionaries.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2013 at 3:15 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    A Turkomen Warrior was extorting submission to Islam and Tribute from a Villager.

    “You have a farm and a house. I have a horse and a whip. I will kill you and leave.”

    ==========================================================

    Why do you seek to build a H\house and a garden plot?

    Let the effete end stage of the armies of parliament defend their villas and fields.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2013 at 10:48 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “House”

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 25th, 2013 at 10:55 am Reply | Quote
  • mailadreapta Says:

    I’m an orthodox Orthodox Christian, whose primary motivation is the desire to live in a traditionally Christian civil society, something rendered impossible while remaining in conversation with the Cathedral. I would be happy with the plain label of “reactionary” but the neo- prefix does indicate several things of value:

    1) First off, it recognizes that the original reaction failed and was utterly destroyed (an observation not original to me). In turn, it implies that the current task is not to preserve an existing civilization but to aid in the birth of a new one.

    2) It recognizes the diversity of the movement, that it contains not only paleo-reactionaries like myself, but trans-libertarians, futurists, and the like whose motivations may be different but whose goals and strategies are similar, especially with regards to the problem of the Cathedral.

    3) Most importantly, it pays homage to Sith Lord Moldbug, who doesn’t use the term himself but was my first introduction to the Dark Enlightenment and is widely acknowledged as the one who (re)discovered the key reactionary insights, such as the corruption of democracy and the degenerative ratchet. That is, we’re not just reactionaries in continuity with the original reactionaries, but reactionaries by way of MM.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 14th, 2013 at 6:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Categorização – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on August 20th, 2016 at 9:12 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment