Our Inheritance

With my nervous-system still too disintegrated by turn-of-the-year excess to begin a set of 2014 prognoses convincingly, I’ve simply stripped this argument from my twitter stream (quoting myself):

Neoreaction cannot understand itself without directing far more sustained attention to its own cladistic identity. As a natural cultural species, it is a fragment of dissident ultra-protestantism, and this is quite certain to guide its fate. The forces of internal fragmentation working through it will make fratricidal Trotskyism look like unperturbed mind-meld. It will be thriving this time next year, but the tides of dissolution it will have overcome to do so will be truly colossal. Those thinking Neoreaction is a platform from which to complacently deride Neo-Puritanism have a highly-educational 2014 ahead.

Neoreaction is not a series of premises (or articles of faith) but a cultural species. I don’t think that we have begun to seriously digest the consequences of that yet.

January 2, 2014admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction


48 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    I’m going to be predictable.

    Attack, Attack, Attack.

    Don’t complacently deride, attack.

    When you don’t have the option of organizing your Army as the conflict is underway and you all don’t know each other as well as you’d like to then combat is the best sorting mechanism. We are already trained and ready. Organization and best practices under these circumstances are done with the immeasurably valuable training of an enemy that’s not likely to destroy you.

    The enemy is the best trainer.

    And the best training wars are small wars. That’s where Chesty Puller learned, he did not arrive full Puller at Guadancanal.

    Let the conservatives and the GOP carry the brunt of the enemies fury. For instance the NYT is continuing it’s New Years offensive by pushing for single-payer. Here again…


    They’re also going to push immigration again.

    No enemies to the Right save Quislings, and tactically speaking save them for later.


    admin Reply:

    One word: Twitter.

    (I’ve no idea why you’re being so stubborn about this.)


    VXXC Reply:

    Are you kidding? With my personality?

    I’ll find you on Twitter


    admin Reply:

    It begins.

    John Lerner Reply:

    How does one actually attack in a way that draws blood?

    There is a reactionary impulse in the frontines (techies) – a desire to see reality as it is. Recruit among them.

    Secondly, make a shame-list of overt progressives in tech. Like that idiot Bryan Cantrill who has promised to fire people who use gendered pronouns in open source.

    The attack line is clear – progressives or “social justice warriors” threaten your livelihood. If your boss is one, you might get fired for repeating a joke you heard on TV, or writing English as it has been written for the last 500 years. And these idiots want your boss to be one.

    This is a public attack in a way that actually hurts. It adds cost to being progressive and ultimately stigmatizes it.


    John Lerner Reply:

    And when I say “recruit among frontines”, red pills like this do very well in the comments section of hacker news. They have the ideology that they must swallow all the pills just to see what’s on the other side. They do not know that they cannot come back from this one….


    peppermint Reply:

    does reminding people that the wages of sin are death raise the cost of their decision to live in sanctimony and fear?

    Their choice is to live in that bubble and never think again, and in exchange they will always be right, unless they can’t keep up. I guess reminding them of their choice to take the blue pill does raise the cost of taking the blue pill.


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 4:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Pyrrhic Victories Says:

    “As a natural cultural species, it is a fragment of dissident ultra-protestantism, and this is quite certain to guide its fate.”

    Would be great if (nervous-system permitting) you could further elucidate this point.

    Out of interest, as two of the most prominent techno-futurist Neoreactionaries, do you and MA ever agree on anything?!

    It would be fantastic if he was willing to debate premises vs cladistic heritage with you here…


    admin Reply:

    “… do you and MA ever agree on anything?! ” — we try not to.


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 5:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Ultra protestants often bump along quite well together once they stop trying to belong to the same organization or stop all trying to claim the same title.

    Neoreaction has no real organization and isn’t a potent title that needs to be claimed, so the internecine quarrels aren’t going to be that intense. In fact, neo-reaction may be a good test case for the first ever movement entirely formed of fellow travelers.

    Also, I push back on the ‘cultural species’ of neo-reaction a bit. As far as I can tell, ultra-protestants fall out over doctrinal matters and leftists fall out over who is leftier than thou. But neo-reaction isn’t fundamentally a doctrinal dispute and it is CERTAINLY NOT an attempt to be even leftier. Neo-reaction is fundamentally an experience, the red pill experience. An experiential basis for your dissent from the mainstream rather than a doctrinal or ideological one puts you guys in a fundamentally different category, more like Mormons than, say, Free-Will Southern pre-Adamite Hullabaloo Baptists, or whatever. As with Mormons, there are divergences from the the source that make understanding it in terms of its background pretty pointless..


    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    Are you saying neoreaction is a way to experience the world for “those who have eyes to see, those who have ears to hear”? Isn’t that what Jesus was talking about with the “kingdom of heaven” thing?


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I’m a Christian myself, but I don’t think those are the same thing. The Christian version of the experience was about having the right kind of interpretative framework, and really, the right kind of character and righteousness. In the Christian version, too, the *experience* of having eyes to see and ears to hear wasn’t defining. Having the right interpretative framework and the right kind of character and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit was defining, and ‘having ears to hear,’ etc., was just an incident of that.

    In Neo-reaction, in contrast, you don’t need a bloody interpretative framework, you just need to hear what’s being bellowed in your ear. And the experience of finally bowing to reality is the defining thing–why you finally bowed doesn’t matter as much, it could be because you are a poonhound or because you are a libertarian who started wondering why libertarian ideology can’t get any traction or a conservative who starts wondering why the Left keeps winning or a Christian who starts thinking that Christian social and family doctrine are actually true, not just tribal signifiers, or a believer in evolution who suddenly wonders why evolution would have stopped.


    Robert Reply:

    Jesus was talking about his Initiatory experience in the Egyptian Mysteries.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Eyes rolling.

    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 5:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    I made a putz out of myself with an essay-length comment (I’m hypergraphic; I pore out and pare down; but your comment field acts on its own!), but I’m going to try this again — and it’s not a fully-formed argument; it might actually be false.

    As something that’s more than the sum of its parts, NR isn’t predicated on one particular strand or author. Moldbug stands without the antisemites; race realism stands without techno-capitalism, and so on.

    This is what drives Progs insane. They don’t know whether they’re reading what they’d qualify as “hate literature” when they’re reading Nick Land (the man who once argued that Kant’s inaccesibility of the noumenon reflected the impossibility of patriarchy seeing the Other). They can trace lines, that’s what they know how to do; they can follow Richwine to the Heritage Foundation and scream “O! But we knew that Milton Friedman was Evil”.

    This is the horror, this is the nightmar: reaction oozing out of pores, or growing like ginger — rhizome. Oozing out of their own pores eventually, like the tentacles they tried to forget they had, but laid dormant there anyway. Reaction, in some more general sense, is just the connectivity of reality reasserting itself — if Enlightment raises a huge mountain, it must _keep holding it_ or it collapses and smashes everyone; if it opens a potential difference, a voltage, to direct power, it will be electrocuted.

    NR holds that horrible promise: Enlightenment, blank slate anthropology, macroeconomic engineering, these are all efforts at raising temporary intensive differences that will not be sustained. Ultimately, civilization collapses, NR or no NR.


    Artemisia Reply:

    This. I don’t think this is false at all. It is exactly that the relative independence of the different “phenomena” comprising neoreaction puts the “Cathedral” into a position similar to facing…not even a ninja, but something like the liquid metal T-1000 from Terminator-2. The fact that one cannot put NR in a single neat box (or even in a set of boxes) is what makes it so potentially virulent. (And anyway, also this: http://www.xenosystems.net/identity-hunger/)
    Which is why – from where I stand, which is a purely spectator position – it looks like the forces of fragmentation with NR are a great thing – viruses developing more strains faster are more deadly. It will definitely be very interesting to see NR walk the line between such fruitful fragmentation and dissolution. Cladistic identity definitely needs to be explored.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    This. Exactly what I meant when I said that neo-reaction’s strength was being all fellow-travelers.

    The Cathedral’s too. The beauty of the system is that almost no one who operates it wholly buys into it. Those who do are usually marginalized as a little nutty.


    Igitur Reply:

    Hey now, how did this comment box acquire my WordPress profile pic if the website I point to is a domain name leading nowhere?


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 5:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    As long as we don’t do overlapping loyalties and ally with the Jurchens to fight the Khitan, fragmentation presents little problems.


    spandrell Reply:

    Also called pulling a Vortigern


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 5:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    If we define neoreaction not as some set of essential features, but specifically as a concretely self-organizing being (for cladistics is analogous to biology, implying an analogy to the self-organizing features of life), it could almost be thought of as the equivalent to a society guiding its own evolution through eugenic science. Ideology, literally “logic of forms.” An idea modeling ideation.


    admin Reply:

    “… but specifically as a concretely self-organizing being …” — I like that a lot.


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 5:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    when the neoreactionaries take power, what will they do? A million factional lines could be drawn over this question, if it were to be approached ideologically. Instead, neoreaction is the culmination of progressivism, getting rid of the vox populi, vox dei line in a world where it is abundantly clear that it takes years for the best to come to grips with it, a process that began almost a hundred years ago.

    What could still be approached ideologically is the distinction between the various paleoreactionaries and the neoreactionaries: whether to have a state religion that is fundamentally distinct from Catholicism, or whether to create a master race that is fundamentally distinct from Whites.


    Igitur Reply:

    But cladistics in biology stands in contradiction to Darwinism.

    Darwin’s dangerous idea is speciation. The kind of evolutionism necessary for, say, eugenicism, existed before. From Plato and Aristotle through the scholastics, the problem of truth had been conflated with the problem of fundamental reality (iforms, essences, universals), but this changes with speciation — now what was understood to be essential and universal (what is a giraffe?) is produced *in time*, even if this is *deep time*.

    NR is, in some senses, a self-organizing creature, a rapidly evolving virus that makes people grow tentacles out of their pores (it makes evident to Progs realize how much of la Barbarie they contain). But it’s also something that grows in response to the events of the 2010s, as it affects a wide range of discontents that share something undefinable — that shouldn’t be defined and imprisoned in words. (I’ve long sought kindred anti-demotic spirits, but the minute opposition to ochlocracy deteriorates into some kind of master-race discourse, I’m noping the frakk out.)

    We can go all the way back to Linnaeus and the problem of classifying Man. If I’m not mistaken, Linnaeus took the heretical step of including Man in his cladistic of animals, but later authors would change this. Is Man an animal or not? This was largely an ontological decision (in the sense of Laruelle’s philosophical decision) up to Darwin. Is Non-Ashkenazi White Nationalism a NR strand? It does look like that right now, but it would remain to be tested that NAWNia would be a good citizen in the same community of states (in a post-Collapse/Reaction horizon) that includes states that are strict Contractual Voluntariststs or other forms implied by NR thought.

    Besides, they — Progs — understand cladistics. Here’s what they don’t understand: rhizome. Tentacles oozing out of pores, ginger roots that keep on growing regardless of where you cut them. And this is happening: the interlocking and convoluted character of NR elides any kind of “wingnuts, wackos, fringejobs” dismissal.

    This sickness was baptized “asignifying rupture” in the heady days of 1970s postmodern french-speaking academia; its very conception was promptly neutralized both by Cathedralist cadres and Maoist shock troopers. But nevermind the frogs — it’s real whether it was conceived or not. It was acutely noticed with the web, and it keeps coming as an endemic consequence of technological possibility itself.

    If you ask me, NR is a rapidly-evolving virus that’s particularly able to attack that mothership, the Cathedral. Sure, the Cathedral could build a website for the NYT, but can it build its very own neoreactionaries? Either we infect the Cathedral or its immune system phagocytes us, I say. If we cede to identity hunger, that’s because we didn’t even breach the mothership’s skin.


    admin Reply:

    “… cladistics in biology stands in contradiction to Darwinism.” — I’m not seeing this at all. Dawkins’ book The Ancestor’s Tale is an excellent example of hardcore cladistic Darwinian fundamentalism. A cladogram is nothing but a graphed system of speciation events.


    Igitur Reply:

    Assuming a clear threshold for speciation, rather than a continuum.

    admin Reply:

    Speciation is a discontinuity (split) that initiates genetic isolation.

    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 6:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Go with Virus.

    It knows what it wants, what to do, and keeps it simple and adaptive.


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 7:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erik Says:

    Regarding internal fragmentation…

    I heard the criticism elsewhere recently that neoreactionary factions couldn’t live together if they came into power after tearing down progressivism.

    Which is just fine, as neoreactionary factions don’t plan to live together after progressivism is torn down.

    “Dissenting groups should resolve dissent by holding a vote as to which way all of them should live together” is a progressive position.

    Neoreactionaries will split apart. This is planned and accounted for.


    VXXC Reply:

    As the greatest Industrialist of all time Big Bill Knudsen would say, all our noses pointing the same way.

    At the enemy.


    Posted on January 2nd, 2014 at 11:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Exit is a very powerful palliative. An unsolvable conflict will not come until there is no possible exit. For everything else, there is politics.


    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 12:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Robert Says:

    The Next Big Thing for Reaktion (of whatever prefixial variety) will be to obtain actual power in some slice of physical territory. The coming fragmentation (as in The Diamond Age or America 3.0) will provide that opportunity on a City-State level. Aside from the theoreticians, a number of other skills will be necessary. The exact ones are left as an exercise for the reader at this time, though I am going to be starting my own blog shortly and will expand on this.


    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 2:08 am Reply | Quote
  • Igitur Says:

    Yes and no.

    First, the impossibility of fertilization is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Dogs are dogs, but try to get a huge Fila to mate with a tiny pekinese — the very anatomy doesn’t fit. Attractiveness matters, too; because we know Spock we know that Vulcans and humans are able to reproduce, yet T’Pol can’t stand the smell of her shipmates.

    Second, this is ignoring the whole discussion in The Selfish Gene. What is the object of cladistics? Self-propulsing animal systems? Proto-phenotypes? What is the trait being shaped and discontinuated? How does it relate hierarchically to systems larger and small?

    (I’m really bothered by what I see as the misuse of cladistics. It’s sure useful to know that geese are more like ducks than horses, but I’m not sure we can ever know that white nationalists are more like trade protectionists than anti-semites, or that accelerationist Pythians are more like plain libertarians than accelerationist let-it-burn anarcho-leftists. The whole thing is a very… dare I say Cathedralite? I dare not. I’m not there yet. Prematurely reterritorializing? I guess I need an official Nick Land note on whether deleuzoguattarese is an intelligible dialect around these lands.)


    Igitur Reply:

    This was a reply to Nick on speciation, in another thread. Is this Typepad? Horrible commenting infrastructure.


    admin Reply:

    The commenting infrastructure is working OK. Actually, there’s a button I could press that would magically update it, but I’m nervous about what it will do. The problem here seems to be a nesting length issue — but if you let it run too far, you get the absurd squashed-up-against the wall effect. You can tell when a jump is called for, when the glowing ‘reply’ option disappears. Just add an ‘@ X’ at the start to avoid ambiguity. … But, if people demand that I press the button, I’ll press the button.

    On substance: Is Deleuzoguattarian an intelligible dialect here? Not sure I’m the person to ask. It’s certainly permitted.

    The use of cladistics point is, I think, part of what I hope becomes a long-running question. It’s a method with excellent Moldbuggian pedigree. It might be premature to jump to conclusions about what it produces. (I tend to like the way it carries conceptions of identity into rigorously determinate but uncomfortable directions.)

    Eventually we do need to plug-in an “oozing” mass of rhizomes — I’m trying to get the arborescence lined up first, because I strongly suspect people tend to over-rate their competence at cladistic analysis (assuming that its outcomes are far more intuitively obvious than they are).


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    No, don’t press that button on my account!

    Max Reply:

    @Press the button.

    Handle Reply:

    @admin. Press The Button! Let the AI out!

    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 2:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    “Speciation is a discontinuity (split) that initiates genetic isolation.”

    This is part of my problem with crypto-Calvinist cladistics. Progressives are supposed to be “genetically” isolated from old-fashioned Christians, just as humans are genetically isolated from chimpanzees. But the Christians keep taking up Progressive dogmas. Gay marriage is only the latest example. The injection of Progressive dogmas into “conservative” Christianity strikes me as one of the primary phenomena that I want a sociological model to explain.

    It’s as if female chimpanzees were developing big breasts and concealed ovulation because of interbreeding with humans.


    spandrell Reply:

    Entryism and elite-aping explains most of it. The Roman church took much of its rituals from official paganism. Byzantines reacted to the rise of Islam by burning their own images. Everybody likes a winner.

    Vertical transmission, i.e. cladistics is important, but horizontal, or sorta diagonal meme propagation is undervalued.


    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 6:41 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “as if female chimpanzees” – question/answer.

    “Bitches Out.” – Prophet Paul’s epistle to everyone.


    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 10:00 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Did I mention I’m a serial plagiarist?

    What Reagan did…

    What DEC should consider doing…

    • SUPPORT INTERNAL DISRUPTIONS WITH A SPECIAL EMPHASIS = on HBD and Darwin not stopping at neck. Or Crime. Or both.

    • PROMOTE FREEDOM. = Promote Intellectual Freedom of Speech and discussion, as opposed to PC shutdown.
    —–which just about everyone hates.

    • DRY UP SOURCES OF SOVIET HARD CURRENCY. = Pry Tech money from the smart away from Progs. It may want to be proposed as a Hedging strategy. The bankrupt and delusional can’t last forever.

    • OVERLOAD THE SOVIET ECONOMY WITH A TECHNOLOGY – BASED ARMS RACE. = Overload their eschatology with overwhelmingly supported Reality.

    • STOP THE FLOW OF WESTERN TECHNOLOGY.= Pry Tech and Geeks from the Progs, free and subtle dissemination of The Red Pill or Pills. We have several brands of Red Pill, pick whatever subject nags you Neo.

    • RAISE THE COST OF THE WARS THE USSR WAS SUPPORTING = See Handle’s avenge me scheme. It always needs to be a proposition with unknown but certain risk to attack one of us.

    • DEMORALIZE THE SOVIETS AND GENERATE PRESSURE FOR CHANGE = No more turning Cur, look them in the eye and find ground to stand and say NO. GENERATE PRESSURE FOR CHANGE = any version of NO.

    For instance the much maligned Hoi Polloi Americanus stopped them cold with MOLON LABE. And purchases.
    Speaking of which…and only quietly if asked…all of us who can avail ourselves of Second Amendment
    Liberties need to be able to answer honestly…and only if asked…Yes. I have availed myself of my inherited Liberty.

    Just a quiet yes if asked. You see…there’s that Human Nature thing…Games between Men.




    Posted on January 3rd, 2014 at 6:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Thing That Ate Libertarianism | Theden | Thedening the West Says:

    […] has been informative to see some libertarians’ reactions to neoreaction. For a movement that entered the political scene with Barry Goldwater’s rejection of the […]

    Posted on January 4th, 2014 at 12:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies… | Pyrrhic Victories Says:

    […] luckily progressivism, aka ultra-Protestantism, aka Evil Incarnate, has a solution to this problem: Why don’t we just build the Kingdom of […]

    Posted on January 5th, 2014 at 6:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aquinas Dad Says:

    Neoreaction as a form of Protestantism? Perhaps; if so, though, it is doomed to self-destruction. Protestantism was and is a form of Progressivism and Modernism; a direct attack at hierarchy, cultural norms, objective morality, etc. Indeed, the more Protestants removed themselves from God’s one true Church the more they became the very fonts of the worst excesses of modernism, progressivism, and cultural decay.
    Blunty – if you aren’t a Latin Mass Catholic, Distributist, Monarchist you are to the Left and not yet really that reactionary.


    Posted on January 7th, 2014 at 5:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies… | Pyrrhic Victories Says:

    […] luckily progressivism, aka Ultra-Protestantism, aka Evil Incarnate, poses a solution to this otherwise intractable problem: why don’t we […]

    Posted on July 14th, 2014 at 5:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • lol Says:

    Nerds. That what y’all are – nerds!


    Posted on December 21st, 2015 at 10:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Thing That Ate Libertarianism | Thedening the West Says:

    […] has been informative to see some libertarians’ reactions to neoreaction. For a movement that entered the political scene with Barry Goldwater’s rejection of the […]

    Posted on May 29th, 2016 at 5:10 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment