Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
As formulated by Mencius Moldbug, expanded by Nick Land and others, Neoreaction is what happens when conservatism adopts social engineering. Conservative goals however do not resemble liberal ones, which are ideological. Conservatives are consequentialists who aim for results in reality, not pandering to what is popular which is inevitably illusion.
He concludes this essay, “What Is Neoreaction?”, by advising his fellow dim enlighteners as to a plan of action:
Golden ages may be restored, but not solely by typing theory onto the internet, and not by radical and ill-conceived plans of revolution and “action” that consists of wanton violence. The solution is to re-take our institutions and dismantle them, bypassing libertarianism for outright Social Darwinism that disenfranchises those unfit to make leadership decisions, and from that to for the first time in history move a society from decay to health.
The path for Neoreaction and New Right thinkers who wish to achieve this goal is not to make ourselves another demotist community that thrives on the votes (or Google AdWords impressions on blogs) of the masses, but forms a cultural consensus among the natural elites to work toward this end. We do not need more theory and closed-circuit intellectualism. We need to clarify our ideas, simplify them and begin putting them into actuality.
Leave it to Matt Forney, however, to inject a measure of realism into the conversation. Addressing conflict between the overlapping phenomena of the Neoreaction and the Manosphere, he asserts, after noting “manospherians think NRx are megavirgins who’d rather masturbate to the collected works of Hoppe than actually do something REAL with their lives”, that “Neither group has the ability to affect change in the real world” and elaborates on his assessment as follows:
This is the clincher, and the central reason why this spat is so fucking retarded. Aside from scattered media coverage, neither the manosphere nor NRx has made a significant real-world impact. They are, for all intents and purposes, solely Internet-based and therefore illusory to a certain extent. Both sides have advanced to meeting up in the real world, which is a start, but doing magic mushrooms in New Orleans or getting drunk in New York City does not a revolution make.
This is why the talk of “alliances” is so fucking goony; there’s NOTHING at stake at the moment. To each other, we’re just words on a screen. Aside from the guys I’m friends with in real life and/or Skype with on a regular basis, none of you impact my life in any significant way. Taking a “side” in this debate is as meaningful as choosing whether to play Terrorists or Counter-Terrorists in Counter-Strike.
Or, as one Reddit user indelicately assesses the group, neoreactionaries through their behavior invite a perception of them as “dumb gay nerds hanging off His Majesty’s royal nutsack.”
Worse, Stevens is far from enjoying consensus among the enlightened dim that “real-world impact” is even a goal. Bryce Laliberte, before deleting his “AnarchoPapist” accounts in ignominy, wrote a no-longer-extant tweet to the effect that Neoreaction is necessarily incomprehensible to non-initiates and that this aloofness, in fact, constitutes the whole “point” of the movement – this despite Neoreaction’s also being in Bryce’s view “the only ideology capable of sustaining a civilization”. The arrogant Outsideness of Xenosystems.net contends furthermore that:
Still, despite the Neoreaction’s apparently total lack of practical value for the project of salvaging European man, Michael Anissimov asserts in his essay “Fear and Loathing Against Neoreaction from Fellows on the Right” that criticisms of the movement are attributable to “rank anti-intellectualism against people who simply have higher average IQs”. He calls the Neoreaction an “energetic dynamo” and characterizes the voltage of other alt-right currents as “largely unimpressive”. After challenging these rivals “to better specify what exactly it is about it that bothers them”, however, Anissimov made the incongruous gesture of closing the comments section under his article.
On a recent episode of Stormfront Radio, hosts Don Black and Roy Dunscombe wondered aloud if the Neoreaction might represent a promising field where future advocacy of white interests is concerned. They might not have bothered to raise the question if they had read some of what leading neoreactionary lights have written on the subject of race relations. Davis M.J. Aurini, for instance, insists that “There is no race problem in America!” for the reason that there is “something magical in American soil.” Matt Forney, whose activity in the shadowy realm of enlightenment these days consists largely of uploading videos of himself playing computer games, charges with unintentional humor that white nationalists “can be bought” (this coming from a self-described “online hustler”) and that their political ends are doomed to failure as “consequentialist idiocy”. “It is a lack of character, integrity and honesty” that informs identitarian politics, alleges neoreactionary fellow traveler Aaron Clarey, who rather advocates “what Martin Luther King was aiming for”. The grand old man himself, Mencius Moldbug, has claimed that while he is “not exactly allergic to the stuff”, white identitarianism “distorts reality”.
Why the reluctance to embrace race? Peter Blood suggests that the Neoreaction “has several characteristics that make it similar to Neo-Conservatism”, namely:
Neo-Cons: liberals, disproportionately Jewish, “mugged by reality”, not pro-white, eventually honeycombing the right and driving out old hard rightists (example, ironically, Paul Gottfried). Eventually everything is done for the Jews.
Neo-Reaction: libertarians, disproportionately Jewish (MY SUSPICION ONLY), “mugged by reality”, not pro-white (boy, they really hate blacks, though), To Be Determined….
It’s the “neo” thing. Irving Kristol: “Ever since I can remember I’ve been a Neo-Something.”
Aryan Skynet’s own Hipster Racist offers these insights:
Interesting parallel between the neo-cons and the neo-reaction. I remember back in the day the “neo” in “neo-con” was often noted to be practically synonymous with “judeo.” [. . .]
One thing I’ve noticed, YKWs have a lot of time on their hands to write all sorts of articles and comments. I can see a few enterprising YKWs doing what they have always done, as described by Kevin MacDonald, set up little cults-of-personality based on a guru and co-opt various intellectual trends into some “movement” or “ideology,” give it a catchy name, then ruthlessly purge the “anti-semites” and otherwise repurpose the movement to whatever benefits jews.
“Indeed,” comments Tanstaafl. “The [traditional, conventional] reaction is to judaization. Neo-reaction is the judaization of the reaction to judaization.”