Definitive NBS

Nick B. Steves defines ‘Neoreactionary‘ for the Urban Dictionary, with concision, clarity, and accuracy. Altogether, a valuable and well-executed piece of work. The format comes in two parts, with an initial definition, followed by an example of usage. This one begins:

Neoreactionary. A new reactionary; typically one coming to reactionary ideas and conclusions by way of post-libertarian and/or post-anarchist paths; like traditional reactionaries one who is profoundly anti-progressive and suspicious of all egalitarian ideologies, but often more focused on free market capitalism as a solution to, or escape from, social ills than his ethnic or religious identitarian forebears; often, but not exclusively, one influenced by the writings of several well-known reactionary bloggers in the 2007-present timeframe.

With some breakfast-table usage exemplified:

As a natural conservative Bill sympathized with part of the agenda of the Center Right party, but as a neoreactionary he knew that it was merely an ineffectual brake on the progress of the left. He advocated for a new yet very ancient politics in which traditional give and take politics no longer was a factor.

Congratulations to NBS. This kind of practical workmanship does a lot to hold things together. It’s sanity glue.

May 11, 2014admin 21 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : ,

21 Responses to this entry

  • Jaymo Says:

    If Urban Dictionary has taught me anything about democracy, its that democracy is a highly effective system for choosing the best among your options. All you have to do is tally up the results, scroll about three quarters of the way down the page, and there you go: the correct answer.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 11th, 2014 at 3:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Definitive NBS | Reaction Times Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on May 11th, 2014 at 5:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    You are too kind. My urban definitions for reactionary and reaction are holding up well. Figured I’d take a stab at the neo- side. My def for “Neoreaction” was booted. Hafta try again.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 11th, 2014 at 5:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “very ancient politics in which traditional give and take politics no longer was a factor.”

    Except that in reality this doesn’t exist, never existed and can’t exist.

    Well King LARP maybe. Which sums the enterprise at this point.

    The closest this ever happens is martial law in wartime and the war can then never end.

    However that’s just if you’re on the receiving end, behind the scenes of course there’s give and take politics. Stalin’s Kremlin had give/take politics.

    But congratulations. You have given a nice right arm booster to Progress. It’s a good idea for the adaptive memeplex of the Left to get some new and vigorous DNA from time to time, Bankers Communism has run dry and the Left has pretty much f__ked out the entire sexual spectrum. Even Stalin embraced Tradition during the war, and of course Mao’s successors did as well.

    This doesn’t of course fix anything, but it may get the Cathedral’s banished White Children back in the door.

    Or not.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    @VXXC

    “Except that in reality this doesn’t exist, never existed and can’t exist.”

    Indeed.

    Saying “ancient politics” is, of course, a giveaway – as if politics changes in any meaningful sense across place or time. Hence “neoreactionary” – such silliness. Here’s a definition for adults.

    Reactionary: A Reactionary recognizes man as a fundamentally social being, order as the supreme value to which human society necessarily aspires, and the disorder wrought by time as intrinsic and ultimately unavoidable; the reactionary, opposing not so much Progressivism so much as the very concept of progress, clings to the singular, the familiar, and the anterior; recognizing belief and submission as the two fundamental requisites for the very semblance of social order, the reactionary considers patriotism and religion as inherently reparative and regards the notion that man is in any sense rational or free to be an effect, symptom, and cause of disorder.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 11th, 2014 at 7:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    Not a big fan of labels in general but “neoreactionary” – in particular – smells like surrender.

    There’s nothing new about Reaction and how one became a Reactionary (no matter when) is entirely irrelevant to the essential nature of the Reactionary perspective. Adding “neo” is probably a symptom of either narcissism and/or misunderstanding.

    I prefer the rustic, unreconstructed aura of “reactionary”.

    Royalist, formalist, monarchist, and (perhaps above all) Maistrian work fine for me as well – if we must dirty ourselves with mere labels.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Most who identify presently as neoreactionaries were neoreactionary before being reactionary. This is an important point which shouldn’t be overlooked. Sure, there’s nothing new about “reaction” per se, but there is something new to neoreaction which is far more appealing to young 20-something white males interested in a more intellectually stimulating critique of modernity than you find in de Maistre or Evola.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    And if most who identify as anarchists were first libertarians should they call themselves libertarians? If most who were once white nationalists were once social conservatives should they call themselves social conservatives?

    This, of course, assumes that there is an actual difference between the fundamental views of neoreactionaries and reactionaries.

    But such a claim is rarely made – and when it is, it appears to be immaterial.

    The difference seems almost entirely cosmetic; it’s about feelings, narrative, (sub-)culture, “one’s path to reaction”.

    Whatever.

    By the way, if you find anything written in the past few decades (at least!) more intellectually stimulating than Maistre’s “Soirées de St. Pétersbourg” then you’re not reading Maistre right.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Ah, but that’s an essential point of NRx. The apparently “cosmetic” is also essential and cannot be overlooked. Truth is good, but power is equally important; and so much as power is conveyed by the sign, then to the sign we must dedicate some of our resources.

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    @Bryce Laliberte

    Power is sooner the master of truth than its servant.

    Power is conveyed by a sign insofar as it is believed to.

    In not proudly bearing the labels of their intellectual forebears, self-described neoreactionaries give up the power (and honor) of imbuing such historical authorities as Maistre, Evola, Bonald, Bossuet, Filmer, Cortes, Plato, Descartes etc with a small fraction of the immense merit they deserve, for such thinkers saw far more than we mere moderns can even recognize.

    By leaving such vanities as sub-culture, narrative, one’s path to reaction etc out, the self-described reactionary implies that the timeless virtue of Reaction is beyond the bounds of his own personal story. You seem to admit that the self-described neoreactionary considers the cosmetic nature of his personal story to imbue the essential perspective of Reaction with power or meaning. If you’re right, then neoreactionaries are are both narcissistic and rather adorable.

    King Solomon: There is nothing new under the sun.

    Reactionary: Amen.

    Neoreactionary: I’m new!!!!!!

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Are you acquainted with the concept of irony? The neoreactionary is perfectly aware of how his embrace inevitably falls prey to that critique, and from which he pivots his own critique in turn against the old fashioned form of reaction and traditionalism in order to demonstrate the inadequacy of the system which rejected these for the wrong reasons.

    Yes, NRx is narcissistic. This has been largely acknowledged since the beginning, and the fact that NRx must be narcissistic is a point in its favor as it is an essential part of its critique against the intellectual and cultural detritus of which it was born.

    admin Reply:

    An Order of Time that knows only decay is Qliphothic.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    “We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time” – T.S. Eliot

    There is a path dependency here that’s hard to articulate. Also, if you’re trying to extract information from someone, it matters whether that person learned it recently and can remember how he learned it (and what assumptions went into it), or if he learned it too long ago to remember anything but his conclusions.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 11th, 2014 at 11:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    I’d like to add my support for NBS. He has done far more for NRx than has been recognized, helping to put us into contact with each other and providing moral support. All while supporting a beautiful family! Three cheers for NBS.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 12th, 2014 at 5:38 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    I can actually get behind three cheers for Nick B. Steves and his yeoman’s patient work.

    I can get behind getting NRxn into the venacular and thank you Nick.

    The point of success with the young above by B/L is important. We can discuss path to the dawning of reality as not important/later. Marketing and message and above all success are paramount so Bravo.

    I can’t endorse what does not IMO exist, but if people are thinking at last then success.
    so Bravo Nick.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 12th, 2014 at 9:29 am Reply | Quote
  • JPOutlook Says:

    Neoreactionist over “neoreactionary”. Never use reactionary; that means you are reacting to something not putting together something natural and organic!

    J.P.O.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Actually this is the exact reason I favor the term “Reactionary”, vis-a-vis “Neoreactionary” or the never uttered “Neoreaction-ism”. What is natural and organic (and might I add deeply non-ideological), happens to be slated for extermination. I am agnostic, at best, for the need of a new ideology. Many ideologies can be imagined which oppose Progressivism. I am content live in a state of truce with all of them.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 12th, 2014 at 12:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Hafta say tho’ that the picked nit on the usage example was fair enough. MM hypothesized a politics beyond all politics but it was at best a Platonic ideal, and neoreactionaries know this. There is a HUGE difference, however, between a sovereign having to balance the competing interests of the great and powerful in his realm and giving everyone free smart-phones.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    “There is a HUGE difference, however, between a sovereign having to balance the competing interests of the great and powerful in his realm and giving everyone free smart-phones.”

    LOL. And all for show, the vote merely changes the fate of the politicians most junior staffers. Once you’re in the This Town club you’ll always eat lunch in This Town again.

    It can be safely said if we completely exchanged Hollywood for DC our situation would improve. The former is after all a business and understands some ground realities. The latter couldn’t make anything above home made amateur TMZ movies on themselves. Perhaps they can be trained to wait tables, but it’s unwise to chance it. I think dishwasher might be safe. I’ve often thought that the current Teleprompter reader on his own merits is at best a metro-sexual maitre d’ in Honolulu.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 12th, 2014 at 4:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land was kind enough to offer praise for Yours Truly’s Urban Dictionary definition of “Neoreactionary”. OK, so it […]

    Posted on May 16th, 2014 at 4:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction – The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land was kind enough to offer praise for Yours Truly’s Urban Dictionary definition of “Neoreactionary”. OK, so it […]

    Posted on April 1st, 2017 at 11:51 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment