One of the plainer meat-and-potatoes expositions of neoreaction is here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/

I mention it because one of the plainer, meat-and-potatoes objections to neo-reaction was later put up by the same guy. I can’t find the link now, but he basically argued that some of the most obviously wasteful parts of progressivism were only obviously wasteful because conservatives/reactionaries were strongly resisting those areas. They were wasteful they way war is wasteful.

I don’t buy that thesis. The Left Singularity is a real thing, and if conservatives weren’t resisting the inevitable march of progress in one way, another way would have to be found.

But with the Middle East, I do buy it. The progressive ‘solution’ to the Middle East would be fairly harmless (for Americans). Boycott Israel or something, spend no money on policing the area, and have lots and lots of peace initatives, which would be pointless, but cost comparatively little. Israel would take it in the shorts, there would probably be lots of chaos and strife in the local area, the price of oil would go up, but the US would probably actually make a lot of profit from that.

Some neo-reactionaries would do basically the same thing, except with less peace initiatives. But the mainstream popular conservative solution would be to continue to support Israel, because its a Western settler state, and because it fits with our Protestantism. But support them actually solving their problems. Cleanse the West Bank and the Gaza strip, crush any state that interferes too much, and if the US gets terrorist blowback, either swiftly overthrow the government and leave, or else break out the nukes. The end result would be much like the progressive one, except with more Israel.

Instead, we get Iraq. An unholy mess of conservative means for progressive ends that accomplishes nothing and costs everything.

Why is this state of affairs allowed to continue? How does it serve Cathedral interests to be thwarted in a way that leads to grotesque waste and inefficiency?

People in these parts will sometimes say that Democrats and Republicans are two sham parties, both superfical masks for the ruling elites. I don’t think so. It best serves elite interests if there are two actually different flavors of policy emphasis to choose between. It gives them more room for maneuver. While we shoulld not expect that the parties will serve the different interests their supporters think they will, we should expect actual differences.

The waste and inefficiency that comes from the influence of both sides on the Middle East may just be the price of doing business.

Ah, there’s that British talent for understatement…

@Lesser Bull

Agreed, if no Cathedral. q.v. mothers, wheels and trolley carts.

Those allies would include Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey”

One of the more loathsome sets of allies around.

Anyway, the fact that Obama has been escorted out of the Middle East is probably for the best. Not because it’s going to bankrupt Russia (why do we want that?), but because the U.S. might have broken something (else) if we kept flailing around.

Putin’s not going to be bankrupted by his larger leadership role in the Middle East, he’s going to make money by selling arms and protection and blocking pipelines. He’s not a totalitarian or an ideologue. He’s a bandit, which implies a certain level of pragmatism.

Putin’s going to raise the Middle East against us? I don’t think we have a lot to fear from Putin’s Shiite (and polytheists pretending to be Shiite) allies. Syria, barely winning a civil war against troubled youths from all over the Muslim world. Iran, hoping not to get invaded / bombed until that they can get a primitive nuke for deterrence against the Sunni bomb and the 300ish Israeli bombs. Possibly we’ll see greater Russian influence in Shiite run Iraq, a country that is likely to be involved in a low level civil war for the next few decades. Not exactly huge threats to the United States, assuming we leave them alone.

Russia can form mutually beneficial relationships with these states, selling them weapons, training and technology without excessively meddling in their internal affairs and trying to convert them to alcoholism and Orthodox Christianity. We’re no longer sane enough to form such benign relationships.

Better for all involved if we’re less involved in the Middle East.