Neo-Reaction in Action

A wise man once said that conviction without action is the death of the soul.  History is awash with philosophers and historians who’ve dedicated their lives to a world of mind.  It’s easy to study and write about the past, but far more difficult to actually create it.  That brings us to the problem of neo-reactionary thought.

The neo-reactionary movement has rightly recognized the reason for the decline of the West, namely that political power has moved from an extremely hierarchical one (a king ruling by divine right) to ever more diffuse incarnations, manifesting itself now in mob rule--euphemistically referred to as--democracy.  

But my intent is not to expound upon the weakness of democracy, nor the leveling of society that is inherent with rule by the lumpenprole.  Not now.  Others have done so and I fear that I would be simply retreading old ground.  There’s something more important at stake.

Neo-reaction and the surrounding body of thought is undeniably in its infancy.  It’s rapidly growing, and moving in diverse (and conflicting) directions.  There are libertarian nationalists, monarchists, neo-cameralists, race realists, and all different types of -ists who are certain they have the solution.  In other words, plenty of thinkers and few doers.

But doing is hard.  One of the main problems is that neo-reaction is by necessity aimed at a very small base.  It requires proficiency in economics, human relations, history, philosophy, and a drive to read obscure and meandering writers.  For God’s sake, our father is Moldbug, and he’s nothing if not garrulous.  

That’s just half the problem, though.  Small numbers isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the idea of enlisting the masses and gaining popular support is.  Gain the support of John Q Public institute a hierarchical government that will then disenfranchise said John Q Public.  Granted, it happened in Russia and China so it’s not entirely unprecedented, but it is paradoxical.

You don’t establish a patriarchal, hierarchical government through consensus.  The idea is simply illogical.  Maybe it would be tempting to follow the communist agitators of the past, as was done in the eastern bloc countries, or even the Nazi beer hall meetings.  Some of you may even idolize the fascist dictators of yesterday, but you are misguided.  As per Moldbug, democracy, communism, and fascism are siblings, rooted in populism.  

Yet, it feels as though populism is the only answer.  We can never be successful as an isolated internet community lamenting the decline.  Yet, is not to mobilize inherently populist?   Maybe the answer is to create a movement, and structure is as we want our society structured, with a corporate king (would he be appointed, how is that even logical?) heading the movement, and an officer aristocracy working to carry out his vision.

This is sounding more and more like a cult.  Maybe there’s a better solution.  The Republic wasn’t so bad; can it be saved?