This is something that’s been on my mind for a while. I think it’s precisely because certain traditional societies pragmatically incorporated inevitable *intra*cultural variation–whether consciously or unconsciously–that they were able to contain the very small groups of innately divergent individuals without the explosion of identity politics. When people are allowed a niche and a productive role within a traditional society, the likelihood of them acting out and creating destructive imbalance is very small, and therefore the system is able to come closer to equilibrium than it would otherwise. This should maintain a relatively stable, *self-organizating* conservative social order.

Taking a laissez faire approach to atypically oriented groups at the public level doesn’t mean sex in the streets and rampant in-your-face degeneracy; in fact I think it would prevent those outcomes and discourage those people from attempting to coopt “normal.” They’re much more likely to understand and accept the necessary primacy of the nuclear family in any balanced society and respond accordingly by settling calmly into a much less visible social role–that means no institutionalized shunning. Progressivism is the only reason LGBTQABCDEFG politics and people are omnipresent in the modern West. Without some toxic agitating catalyst like progressivism, a group that makes up 2-3% of the population would be nearly invisible as a natural state of affairs.

Neoreaction is based on intellectual inquiry, and neoreactionaries are for the most part very much reality based. Doesn’t engaging in top-down social engineering, fresh out of the gate, based on feelz not facts contradict that empirical foundation and the basic assumptions of NRx? I’d say so. I’d also say that setting house rules about who can take part in these discussions about NRx is similarly feelz based.

Christian nationalism is problematic because since the fall of Rome it hasn’t corresponded to a nation very well and since its too subject to schism. Other kinds of nationalism can be split up to, but with more difficulty where the basis isn’t explicitly doctrinal.;

Don’t be cowed. Produce that delicious insight-laden crimethnk.

‘It won’t work, will it, Ted?’
‘It won’t, no. But we have to try.’

those that say we have developed a magical vaccine for leftist infection with our flimsy ideology

Normally I would agree but most of core DE were zombies and aren’t anymore. It’s not a vaccine, it’s inoculation by the real thing. We had rabies but recovered. I don’t know about you, but I did it to myself; if I somehow got infected again I would cure myself again.

The problem is with those who were never really NRx in the first place; who liked the applause lights but didn’t want to trouble themselves to actually update their aliefs.

You want a label, fine, whatevs. But you’ll inevitably attract these hangers-on, and the internet being what it is, they will outnumber you and thus pressure the label to drift. Hence my suggestion to slough off labels regularly. Hell, why do you think Moldbug could never settle on a name for his ideology?

My point isn’t really to slough off labels. My point is if you really wanted to solve the problem, it is eminently solvable.

By all means, keep NRx at distance from LGBT politics and reject it in accordance with your values, but it would be hubris to actively prevent people from addressing their health conditions just because they are disturbing.

Why do you care that 1 in 10,000 or so person chooses to undergo elective surgery and take hormones in an effort to improve their well being.

It’s a rather minor issue.

Compared to stuff like, I dunno, rampant obesity rates and lack of fitness. Which improves mental performance and learning.

The damage to society and economy from sedentary lifestyles is a way bigger problem.

(note to admin, I’ll be posting as R. from now on. Sorry with the C. business)

And iirc, dress codes have existed, at least in European societies, since perhaps the dark ages.