The reactionary Great Filter

Michael Anissimov thinks other conservatives attack neoreactionaries often because we resent the fact that they’re smarter than we are.  Unremarkable neoreactionary bluster?  It would be a mistake to dismiss it as such, because he bases his case on two important and, I think, true facts:

  1. Conservatism/reaction/counter-revolution has been a failure for two centuries.
  2. Neoreaction has done pretty well building itself up in its first few years of existence.

On the other hand, reading Paul Johnson’s The Birth of the Modern:  World Society 1815-1830, I was stunned to learn what a splash Legitimist intellectuals, especially Chateaubriand, made in their day.  For a short time, the Revolution seemed to have been defeated not only on the battlefield but on the plane of ideas and elite opinion, and anybody who was anybody had become a Catholic, an Anglican, or a German Romantic (whatever the counter-revolutionary thing to be was in one’s particular country).  Intellectually, the years of the Revolution and the decade thereafter were certainly the most creative for the Reactionary cause.  And yet, by 1825 or so, it was all over, and everybody who was anybody had moved on to being a democrat, a nationalist, and an anti-clerical.

The burst of conservative writing in the mid-20th century (Kirk, Nisbet, Voegelin, Weaver) also seemed impressive at the time.  We know how that turned out.

So, yes, the Neoreactionaries are doing a great job building up an intellectual movement.  This is something to be proud of–lots of groups never achieve anything like what Moldbug’s followers have already done.  On the other hand, it has happened several times already in the history of the Right that intellectual movements have gotten to this level.  Then they dissipated.  For whatever ultimate cause, they became corrupted and oversimplified; they lost the enthusiasm of their followers and the attention of everyone else.  These schools of thought all failed to impede the advance of liberalism.  Between its initial awakening and world historical influence there seems to be a Filter (perhaps several, but let’s keep things simple), and no antiliberal movement has yet survived it.  And this challenge is before the neoreactionaries, not behind them.

So good luck, guys!

44 Responses

  1. The thing that makes me optimistic is that NRx recognizes that “the attention of everyone else” is immaterial. The thing that makes me pessimistic is that I’m not sure that humans can live like that.

  2. There were still traditionalist thinkers like Ruskin in the late 1800s. I’m sure there were others as well.

    But, yeah, you get these brief counterattacks and then everything moves even more to the left.

  3. […] Source: Throne and Altar […]

  4. Yeah because stacking nominees for science fiction literary award constitutes a great victory for Reaction™

  5. It would have been easy to take Anissimov’s post as very insulting, so I appreciate your classy, magnanimous, encouraging reply…. it makes me optimistic that differences can be hashed out and that people can work together. Thanks.

  6. Anissimov’s article typifies a lot of neoreactionary writing, in that it is high on bragging and low on substance. My impression is that it’s this sense of self-importance that has rubbed other right-wingers up the wrong way, leading to the current micro-controversies.

  7. I used to like reading moldbug (though he was wrong about a lot of important things, he was at least pithy), but most of these guys are just boring. Do they even read old books anymore?

  8. […] combination of grace and insight crammed into this short post by Bonald is an amazing thing. Read the first two paragraphs for the historical wisdom, […]

  9. […] combination of grace and insight crammed into this short post by Bonald is an amazing thing. Read the first two paragraphs for the historical wisdom, […]

  10. I think one always needs to qualify this term Conservative. By the definition I use, I would not refer to you Bonald as a Conservative, and I think most Conservatives in the US except for perhaps some on the extreme paleocon side would be aghast at what you believe. There is a difference between Conservative and Reactionary in that Conservatism is consigned to Liberalism’s already chosen paradigms. Conservatives just cannot be against suffrage, democracy, or secularism. They certainly cannot be for the kind of monarch you advocate.

    The entire spectrum of thought on the radical right that does not play by the Conservative rules can be defined as Reactionary, with NeoReaction being a substrain or a meta-narrative (nobody seems to be able to decide what it really is). Anissimov can be annoying at times and I have definite disagreements with a good chunk of what he writes, but largely I find that NeoReaction is very open to working intellectually with those who define themselves outside of it. John Glanton for example is a columnist at Social Matter, and he wrote an article on why he doesn’t use the label for himself.

    Anissimov fails to make a good identification of the real trouble-makers. There are disagreements over the border of NeoReaction most certainly, but from the Theonomy side these have mostly been cordial and spirited. The problem has come from ethno-nationalists who just don’t feel NeoReaction discusses HBD enough anymore. Most of this crap is consigned to Twitter and if Anissimov actually wanted to be rid of it, he could just… leave Twitter.

  11. > The problem has come from ethno-nationalists

    It even sounds like it was some dust up with them that prompted the linked article. In general, neoreactionaries and religious reactionaries have gotten along decently well. Fights occasionally happen between ethnonationalists and religious reactionaries, but it’s usually triggered by our Churches doing something egregiously anti-white. It’s the manosphere, though, that really hates our (traditionalists, social conservatives, religious reactionaries) guts. (The men’s rights section that is. There’s less friction with the pickup artists, presumably because less contact.) There was a time when those two groups weren’t clearly distinguished, and I remember erudite articles at The Anarchopapist arguing that, counterintuitive as it may have then seemed, the manosphere was distinct from what was then called “the Dark Enlightenment”. Now the distinction is clear to everybody, and NRx are a more likeable bunch for it.

    Anissimov is actually one of my favorites at “More Right”. It’s perhaps unfortunate that this is the first of his posts that I linked.

  12. […] has yet survived it. And this challenge is before the neoreactionaries, not behind them. – Bonald via Outside […]

  13. >It even sounds like it was some dust up with them that prompted the linked article. In general, neoreactionaries and religious reactionaries have gotten along decently well. Fights occasionally happen between ethnonationalists and religious reactionaries, but it’s usually triggered by our Churches doing something egregiously anti-white. It’s the manosphere, though, that really hates our (traditionalists, social conservatives, religious reactionaries) guts. (The men’s rights section that is. There’s less friction with the pickup artists, presumably because less contact.) There was a time when those two groups weren’t clearly distinguished, and I remember erudite articles at The Anarchopapist arguing that, counterintuitive as it may have then seemed, the manosphere was distinct from what was then called “the Dark Enlightenment”. Now the distinction is clear to everybody, and NRx are a more likeable bunch for it.
    Anissimov is actually one of my favorites at “More Right”. It’s perhaps unfortunate that this is the first of his posts that I linked.<

    Y'know, I think we have the same problem with the manosphere, but it seems to be more the PUAs than the MRAs for us (and possibly for the same reasons – i.e. lack of contact).

    This made me think of all the movements that are on the borders of NRx and what differences we have. With you guys on the side of theonomy, I think our main difference is a disagreement to what degree to defer to market mechanism or to let capitalism have its way. This tends to be more of an intellectual argument and, thus, quite civilized, with NRx being on the side of allowing more freedom of the market and theonomy being on the side of constraining the market for purposes of limiting degeneracy or sin. This argument is less about emotional bias and more about opinions on the logical conclusions of our stances. This is why, despite our differences, we still remain pretty cordial.

    On the other hand, our differences with ethno-nationalism has increasingly become HBD vs white supremacy. On our side, we see their racialism as barbaric and they see our HBD patchwork as capitulation to the enemy. We see them as dangerous and they see us as fools. They believe we will sit on our haunches and get nothing done (not entirely untrue) and we believe they'll get all the wrong things done.

    Then there's the manosphere. I don't care much for either the PUAs or the MRAs, personally. One side seems degenerate and the other seems weak and immasculate (I think this might be neologism – I mean, "not very manly", as opposed to emasculate). We don't seem to have very many arguments with MRAs, if for no other reason than that they are so below our radar as to be like ants. Our arguments are with the PUAs who we see, not only as degenerates, but as those who endorse and propagate degeneracy. They breed it; they thrive on it. They weaken manhood by making it about sexual conquest and they weaken women by encouraging their social decay into sluts.

    This leads me to another insight (just popped into my head while typing this); it seems that religious reaction and neoreaction are two sides of the same coin – let's call that civilized reaction. Despite our differences, we seem to want the same things – order and civilization. Ethno-nats and manospherians seem to be two sides of the same coin – barbaric reaction. They seem to want the same things – power and gratification. We are two completely separate political identities, joined only by a word. Not only our the differences between the civilized and barbaric becoming a rift, but I feel our ideals may be mutually exclusive and constitute our being adversaries.

    On one side theonomists and NRx both prefer civilized order, but merely express it different ways. On the other side, ethnats and manospherians prefer gratification and simply express it in different ways. It, then, is clear to me to be the difference between chaos and order. To continue a D&D analogy that Moldbug had used, we're on the side of Lawful Neutral and they're on the side of Chaotic Neutral. We had always thought our pragmatism (the Neutral part) made us allies, but the Law vs Chaos makes us enemies.

  14. It’s fascinating to actually tease this out and realize we have observed different thing based on where we have been looking. Both you and Ferret have really given an in-depth perspective. Its unfortunate the Reactosphere at large is very complex and intricate.

    I don’t see the friction between Theonomic-focused Reactionaries and the Techno-Commercialist strain of NeoReaction to be based off of economics primarily. Simply because from what I’ve seen, we don’t engage with the topic too much (except for Zippy’s headline work on usury which I must get around to at some point). I know a little about economics, but not enough to really come down definitely on the argument. Right now I am favorable to a guild-system rather than the corporatist model that Moldbug and others have advocated. But this doesn’t seem to be the big point of tension. I think it is the question of religion primarily. The Techno-Commercialist wing are largely atheists from the West Coast(with a few people like Anissimov being in favor of some zany computer god). They’re not necessarily vociferous about it, but on a very base level such people have trouble understanding Theonomic arguments from any point other than practicality.

    This being said, I think Ferret is correct in his assessment that these relations are largely cordial. We have to bear in mind this goes for both the Theonomic wheel of ‘Spandrell’s Trike’ (Bryce, Nick Steves, Orthodox Laissez-Fairist, etc.) as well as those Theonomic Reactionaries who don’t adopt the NeoReactionary label for themselves (Bonald, Myself, Bruce Charlton, etc.)

    I’ll address the ethno-nationalist point lastly, but first let me give my observations of the Manosphere. Yes, it has usefully been separated out from Reaction as well as specifically NeoReaction. I’ve called it a ‘gateway’ to more extreme works more than anything. But I don’t see a great amount of tension here if I’m honest. There just doesn’t seem to be much direct dialogue between our side and the Manosphere except with that part of the Manosphere which is Christian, such as Dalrock (one of the few Manosphere blogs I would consider intellectual, which says a lot about the secular ones). PUA really doesn’t deserve much mention. It’s so distant a movement from what we represent I’m surprised we would ever cross paths. And talking about the Manosphere at large, PUA and MRA are both groups we shouldn’t have much contact with really. One is degenerate and the other is essentially milquetoast Conservative (they just want to level the legal system and make things ‘fair’ to fathers and such). It’s the active Patriarchy part of the Manosphere which is overwhelmingly Christian that we should be in contact with. I mean, I don’t even consider PUA or MRA to be political movements in nature really.

    Now, when it comes to ethno-nationalists, yes the recent dust-up on Twitter has been wholecloth neo-nazis/trolls and the NeoReactionaries who were on Twitter. There has been not a shot fired from those on our side of the sphere. However, even though some involved in this were periphery NeoReactionaries looking for attention, most were StormFront types who think NeoReaction is Jew-owned or something to that effect. So it is for the most part an external conflict rather than an internal one. I don’t consider Neo Nazis to be in the Reactosphere at all. To put it nicely, they’re a bunch of losers. Unfortunately these are the entryists some in NeoReaction had been paranoid about. You only have to go over to Jim’s Blog to see them clustered in the popular comment sections at times, influencing the conversation. They’re easy to pick out, along with assorted trolls.

    I don’t really recognize the order/chaos dichotomy present in ideologies here, but in individuals yes I think the spheres attract different types. Ultimately, I support returning men to a status of power in society (though not through depraved pick-up artistry) and I am in favor of ethno-states. Except unlike Peppermint, I’m not going to go around to every comment section to say “niglet” just for the hell of it. Look, the reason the ethno-nationalists of the Neo Nazi variety are angry about Reactionary thought’s ascendancy is because it takes attention and traffic away from them. For decades, the only choice for people who didn’t feel contemporary Conservatism was right wing enough was places like StormFront and such, but that isn’t the case anymore.
    Since the birth of the internet, Adolf Hitler’s ideas have had an online base. It is only now that the ideas of Joseph De Maistre have an online base as well. Our solutions are better, our arguments are better, the issues we, collectively, tackle are more broad, and in general our attitude is better. They are yesterday’s news in most places. That is why there is a backlash. Though I’m sorry some good folks at NeoReaction got stung by it, it does make me glad that our wing of the Reactosphere is by and large a little too antediluvian and pretentiously highbrowed to use Twitter.

  15. That’s a much more pragmatic view of it than what I said, and probably more true.

  16. There can be no final victors, only shifting coalitions. The sooner the various factions come to realise this, the sooner they can move beyond mere words to effective actions.

    The final product — a pathway to an infinite set of choices of lifestyle and governance — can be realised if the factions can stay focused on that goal.

    People whose minds cannot see beyond one simple ideology to the hugely greater universe beyond, will always clog the gears of change, to essentially no good purpose.

    Breaking out of one’s indoctrination is only the first step in a long struggle.

  17. “lots of groups never achieve anything like what Moldbug’s followers have already done.”

    Lots of groups never achieve NOTHING?

    https://aryanskynet.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/allergic-reaction/

  18. The one thing that is great about the Manosphere is the consistent call to become better men. Now while some (much?) of it has a dubious concept of ‘better’, the call for men to rise the level of greatness they are capable of is not something to be dismissed lightly.

    But then, I’ve always read for what I can take away and been able to dismiss aspects that are less savoury.

    Intellectual pursuit needs to be rooted in reality, and tested against it. It needs an engineering to its science. One of the beauties of Neoreaction is that it brings together concepts that are necessarily to be held in tension. There doesn’t need to be a ‘theory of everything’, merely a cognisance of enough of it to support testing and action. Neoreaction needs leadership under its advice.

    Neoreaction needs leadership under its advice, not leadership over its advice.

  19. […] See firstly Bonald’s post ‘The Reactionary Great Filter‘ […]

  20. The reactionary pickup artist types, such as they are, tend to wish religious reactionaries well in a vague sort of way and tend to bemoan the sorry moral state of Western womanhood. They tend to agree that only a traditional morality can create civilized relations between the sexes.

    Buuuuuuuuuut they are more interested in taking advantage of/wallowing in the chaos for their own purposes than they are in finding a good woman (it can be done, even in the West) and settling down to live virtuously. They probably would hate our guts if we had any power to hinder their womanizing in any substantial way.

  21. The pick-up artists seem to me to have a small but nonzero positive value for religious reactionaries. Of course the pick-up tactics they advocate using are degenerate and un-Christian. At the same time, the mere fact that these tactics– at least the ones endorsed by the smarter and more socially adept pick-ups artists rather than the snake oil e-book clowns– actually work is a big problem for the liberal (and more specifically feminist) worldview. Women wanting something different from what they say they want challenges all sorts of assumptions about individualism, authenticity, and the need to take the stated desires of others at face value without any sort of paternalism. That what they actually want lines up more with traditional ideas of masculinity than the sort of submissive, limp-wristed personality promoted in feminist indoctrination sessions undermines the feminist hope that human sexuality is infinitely malleable and that all of the undesirable parts can be made to disappear with enough sensitivity training seminars.

    Of course, insisting on a total separation of a man’s descriptive beliefs from his normative ones seems to ignore the distortion of the intellect caused by indulgence in sin, so it would be wise to take all of what the pick-up artists say with a grain of salt.

  22. the same time, the mere fact that these tactics– at least the ones endorsed by the smarter and more socially adept pick-ups artists rather than the snake oil e-book clowns– actually work is a big problem for the liberal (and more specifically feminist) worldview.

    My Lord!

    Talk about re writing history. There are a huge problem for both liberals and social conservatives since they understand the needs of women in the same way. Bonald gave me the flick for pointing this out.

  23. Slumlord, liberalism was not a reaction to socon failures. Second, while PUA techniques work and can sometimes be very helpful in a modern context, they wouldn’t be necessary in a properly functioning patriarchy.

  24. The PUA people strongly agree with us on the reality of sex differences. The MRAs are often ambivalent.

  25. @Thursday

    Social Conservatives, particularly the Traditionalist faction, did not invent Liberalism but provided the conditions in which it thrived. The rise in Population in 19th C Europe combined with economic and scientific discoveries meant that things had to change. The traditionalists did not permit appropriate change and the liberals filled the vacuum.

  26. provided the conditions in which it thrived

    No. And you have zero evidence that it did. One followed the other, that’s all you have.

  27. @Thursday
    Turn of the 20th C social writers were concerned about the “social question”. The burgeoning proletariat who literally saw themselves as wage slaves of the rich. Sanger, like Kinsey, for all their faults were given an audience because there was no one else addressing sexual issues which were cloaked in prudery. The emancipation of women was hijacked by the feminists because traditional society provided a one size fits all approach to womanhood. People embraced, socialism, feminism etc because there were no other alternatives. I’m interested in your thoughts as why you think these evils took hold.

  28. What have moldbugs followers achieved?

  29. Slumlord, all you’ve shown is that modern economic conditions led to liberalism. Yawn.

    What that had to do with the failings of traditionalists is still not explained.

  30. traditional society provided a one size fits all approach to womanhood

    Conflation of modern (post-1800) industrial conditions with traditionalism. Nice.

  31. Going Amish on me?

    What that had to do with the failings of traditionalists is still not explained.

    Executive version: Traditionalists don’t change, external conditions do. Traditionalism becomes maladapted to the environment.

    For example, the motive force for the French revolution were legitimate problems in France, problems which the existing aristocracy failed to address and which even Burke admitted needed to be addressed. When your starving and hungry you gain respect for the man who provides you with food.

    Slumlord, all you’ve shown is that modern economic conditions led to liberalism. Yawn.

    Sorry to bore you but……uhmmmm…..No.

    The sexual revolution wasn’t a consequence of global economic trade, nor of interest rate policy, nor or improvements of capital allocation. It was due a cultural reappraisal of sexual mores which in turn were due to scientific progress and real problems with regard to sexual relations and regulation of fertility The fundamental suppositions of Liberalism are metaphysical and not economic. BTW, as the fact seems to escaped you, modern liberals i.e., Socialists and Communists weren’t free market types.

    Liberalism is not contingent upon modern economic conditions, though modern economic can in certain circumstances facilitate it. The free market is compatible with a moral society but it is not compatible with a traditional society and Modern Western society does not create the compulsion to sin, people chose this of their own free accord.

    Technological progress, rising wealth and societal insights all created opportunities which simply weren’t there in the past and some of which were morally legitimate. i.e. female entry into the workforce and education. The traditionalist response was simply to deny these and map agrarian social models onto an industrial world. The more they denied, the more stupid they looked, and people stopped listening.

    Evidence? are you seriously proposing that Traditionalists were advocating female education, etc?

    You talk the traditionalist talk but you sound like a liberal, ignoring data which doesn’t correspond to your world view.Where’s the evidence? Dude, look around you. Abolition of slavery? Let me guess, it was the Traditionalists (Southern Agrarians) who were leading that change? Right. Fertility regulation (Catholics), betterment of workers conditions (Republican party). The traditionalists have opposed virtually every legitimate progressive change.

    But maybe I’m wrong and you have a better explanation for traditionalism’s failure. Seriously, I’m all ears.

    …..crickets…

  32. When your starving and hungry you gain respect for the man who provides you with food.

    The Left has only ever promised food, never given it, especially of a spiritual variety.

    Slumlord, your entire posts amounts to faulting Traditionalists for not surrendering our moral beliefs because of technological progress. The arguments about whether or not birth control is a good idea stand or fall regardless of industrialization (I being a Protestant opposed to birth control). So, you think the Christian Church should have decided “yo, hey, let’s forget about birth control because, you know, modernity demands it.” That’s what we Anglicans did. You can see what a lot of good that has done us, and it’s not like those Anglicans ceased believing in the Trinity at the same time.

    The reason “Traditionalist” (AKA conservative Christian) positions are “irrelevant” is because people refuse to submit to the Lordship of Christ and our Churches are now so pathetic they don’t even present it.

  33. @natanjevans

    The Catholics believe in birth control as well, only through the mechanism of NFP.

    especially of a spiritual variety.

    The word was made flesh and flesh needs to eat. Man does not live by the word of God alone. One of the works of Charity is feeding the poor. Neglect that and you’ve failed in your Christian mission.

    also

    Traditionalist and Christian are not synonymous. You’re engaging in concept conflation.

  34. @Slumlord

    At any point did you actually address a point I made?

    One of the works of Charity is feeding the poor. Neglect that and you’ve failed in your Christian mission.

    So? Of what relevance is that to why traditional Christendom failed? The French Revolution happened because one state got into some stupid wars it couldn’t afford and couldn’t adjust to both feed her people and pay for its foreign misadventures. This was hardly a systemic failing of the way Christendom was organized in the face of industrialization. The first faint signs of industrialization happened in the middle of the Revolution in a foreign country, after all.

    Traditionalist and Christian are not synonymous.

    You’re tarring anything you don’t like with the label “Traditionalism.” So, do you think “Traditionalists” should just roll over and decide “yo, hey, we should outsource our children to daycare and let women work”? It’s hard to understand exactly what point you are trying to make other than “shut up, you failed, you ignorant fanatic.” If I wanted that, I could just go over to the combox at HuffPo and try to troll for Traditionalism on it.

    You seem to think there is some kind of legitimacy to the present sexual anarchy. What’s your solution, exactly, that’s so not “one sized fits all” or whatever other trite phrases you can trot out to slam the Victorians? As if the Victorians are the problem in the world and without them everything would have turned out hunky-dory for Reactionaries.

    It seems to me that Christianity should have something to do with what Christians of the past have believed (you know, tradition). It isn’t an evolutionary adaptation program with a Jesus-theme, after all.

    You’re engaging in concept conflation.

    You’re burning a strawman. You haven’t actually made a point, just attempted to tear down something you don’t like for some nebulous reason you haven’t really expressed.

  35. @nathanjevens

    It seems to me that Christianity should have something to do with what Christians of the past have believed (you know, tradition)

    You believe in tradition, I believe in truth. Not the same thing.

  36. You believe in tradition, I believe in truth. Not the same thing.

    What trite nonsense.

    The Scriptures teach the Truth, and the Church has traditionally believed in the Scriptures.

  37. Oh, please. Modern economic conditions and the sexual revolution are intimately connected.

    The free market is compatible with a moral society

    I’m supposed to accept that on your say so.

    Every single one of your arguments could be used to accept premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, whatever. We just need to get hip.

  38. Don’t you just hate when you go on a very brief hiatus, you get back and there are a million points to address. Odious as the task is, let’s go over some of the points presented in this exchange and set the record straight.

    “There are a huge problem for both liberals and social conservatives since they understand the needs of women in the same way”

    How so? The premise is that females, particularly those of a Modern variety stripped of the strengths of Womanhood, can be psychologically gamed and manipulated by anyone who knows the technique. How is this a problem for those you call ‘social conservatives’? They have never denied this claim, at least not to my knowledge. I don’t think anyone here has denied it either.

    “Second, while PUA techniques work and can sometimes be very helpful in a modern context, they wouldn’t be necessary in a properly functioning patriarchy.”

    BINGO! We have a winner.

    “Social Conservatives, particularly the Traditionalist faction, did not invent Liberalism but provided the conditions in which it thrived.”

    Well, this is an asinine statement. This implies there was some other possible condition in which it would not have thrived. Let’s be clear. Prior to the Enlightenment, all societies were Traditional, in varying degrees of their natural growth and decline cycles. This was the mode of life all across the globe, and had been as such since the dawn of civilization. As has been pointed out, your argument amounts to “things were Traditional before Liberalism! Therefore Liberalism was caused by Tradition!”. It’s just not a useful statement. It’s like saying “the victim is dead, but before he was dead he was alive! So being alive created the conditions for him to die.” How is that a useful analysis?

    “meant that things had to change.”

    No. This is the ever-present cry of Liberalism. Things don’t have to change (in the way that the Enlightenment meant ‘change’). Revolutions don’t need to happen. Millions of people don’t need to die under guillotines and scalpels. This only occurs when you chase the far-off utopia that doesn’t exist. All corrections required to any given external alteration can be accomplished without leaving the reservation of Traditionalism.

    “no one else addressing sexual issues which were cloaked in prudery.”

    Sexual taboos exist for a reason. Nobody was addressing the issues covered by those whom you cite just as nobody had covered those issues thousands of years prior. Unfortunately, at the time we didn’t have a Traditional order to shut those people up and prevent their corrupting influence, which is what they did have a thousand years prior. Kinsey would have been executed or exiled long before he published anything, in the pre-Enlightenment era. The man was a certifiable degenerate.

    “The emancipation of women was hijacked by the feminists because traditional society provided a one size fits all approach to womanhood.”

    What does this even mean? Womanhood is one size fits all. Womanhood (in Evola’s terms) is the realization of true feminine virility in the twin virtues of the lover and the mother. All female human beings must strive for this. Will there be examples of failure for various reasons? Yes. Should society cater to those failures, those outliers? No. To do so endangers the whole system. Look throughout history and you will find that women occupy (in the general sense) the same role in almost all societies. Their primary focus is centered around the nurturing of the future generation and tending to their marital partners.

    “For example, the motive force for the French revolution were legitimate problems in France, problems which the existing aristocracy failed to address”

    These same problems existed throughout history at various points, the same complaints, even to greater degrees and extent. They never ended with the overthrowing of Tradition. This is as almost petty as the claims of ‘systematic abuse’ made by America’s Founding Fathers. An objective analysis, taking all of human history into account, shows that they were crying over nothing. Perceived injustices and grievances did not result in the desolation wrought by the French Revolution prior to its happening. There was no justification for what occurred.

    “The free market is compatible with a moral society but it is not compatible with a traditional society”

    Again, this is just incorrect. By comparison, Traditional society’s markets look Ayn Randian when you put them side by side with the regulation-swamped Modernity which has even made street corner lemonade stands a potential felony. Traditional markets were free on comparatively few conditions, one being that media items were not allowed to promote immorality, anti-Tradition, or heresy. Sorry I’m not going to defend Hollywood’s ‘free market right’ to produce toxic bile.

    “Modern Western society does not create the compulsion to sin, people chose this of their own free accord.”

    Wrong again. Of course society can create compulsion to sin, and Modern society does this to an almost Canaanite level. In fact, in some places it is a hate crime NOT to sin, as we’ve seen during the recent ‘same sex marriage’ fiasco. Modern society most certainly does compel people to sin. People may give into this compulsion of their own free accord, but what free accord can you actually take account of when there are often huge penalties for resistance, and alternative options have been hidden from view deliberately? An obscenely sinful society in law, culture, and ethics breeds obscenely sinful people. That is not a matter of coincidence.

    “some of which were morally legitimate. i.e. female entry into the workforce and education.”

    No, not morally legitimate. The only way you could defend this is by presupposing one of Liberalism’s grand dictates. Women’s entry into the workplace was predicated on the need for labor for a Modernist war, and when that war was over and most of the good men were dead, very sick and twisted women exploited this to push for suffrage. This isn’t moral. It’s wicked and usurpatious. It is for precisely this reason that we have sexual anarchy and all vestiges of Patriarchy have been turned upside down. Here’s a hint: female entry into the workforce (on a mass and all-encompassing scale) as well as education, is Liberalism. There is no other word for it. If you support that, then you are supporting Liberalism.

    “The reason “Traditionalist” (AKA conservative Christian) positions are “irrelevant” is because people refuse to submit to the Lordship of Christ and our Churches are now so pathetic they don’t even present it.”

    YAHTZEE! We have another winner.

    “Traditionalist and Christian are not synonymous”

    Their relationship is thus. Not all Traditionalism is truly Christian. But all true Christianity is Traditional.

  39. @Thursday

    Every single one of your arguments could be used to accept premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, whatever. We just need to get hip.

    Yeah, any change from tradition immediately leads to these things doesn’t it? Therefore, no change.

    I rest my case.

  40. […] then this: The Reactionary Great Filter. Short, but fantastic. Picking the strong rightward horse must look quite easy at times, but is an […]

  41. The free market is compatible with a moral society

    You are letting your ideology get in the way of truth.

  42. […] a criteria for success. For me, the criteria for success that we should all aim for is passing the Reactionary Great Filter. Go read that post because it defines for me what the goal of neoreaction should […]

  43. Neoreaction is like libertarianism, one weird trick to divert (mostly young) men with free time and sometimes money away from any kind of practical or serious threat to the Establishment. In that respect it’s succeeded admirably. It’s immensely liberal (just like libertarianism), regardless of attempts to discuss monarchy or the like.

    Conservatism/counterrevolution/etc has failed because it refuses to acknowledge the full implications of the Industrial Revolution, particularly but hardly limited to the woman problem. And I’d suggest it hadn’t failed really until the Industrial Revolution’s specially evil child the Sexual Revolution grew to maturity in the 1960s. Prior to that, conservatism could chug along fitfully not completely losing and winning the occasional large battle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: