Monday, February 20, 2012

Phffffffbbbbbtttt! Here comes the airplane!

Open wide!

Why are you subscribed to me and not Foseti? Silly person.

"Neoreactionary" is a dumb term. This must sound insulting, AUK, but my goal isn't to antagonize you, just to shoot down your term before it spreads like smallpox.

Are we all reactionaries, even? What does that term mean for us?

Why do we care to associate ourselves with such silliness as "neoliberals", "neoconservatives", etc? I get that you might find playing off those terms funny, but do you want to describe yourself with a joke?

Are we even "us?"*

I describe myself as an "autocratist." This kind of mechanical-sounding term works for me for several reasons:

-It has a useful sound and feel to it. It's not quite sing-songy, but I don't find it clunky-sounding, either.

-It very accurately and concisely describes my belief system. Government should be by an autocrat. I think that disclosure is one of the most desirable aspects of reaction/monarchist/royalism/autocratism. Does "neoreactionary" tell you anything?

-It's broad. Emperor? King? Czar? Dictator? All fall into the purview of "autocrat".

I'll still describe myself as a "monarchist" or a "reactionary" if the situation calls for it. But why invent a new term that fails to accomplish anything more than the old, familiar ones? Bah!

*Perhaps there will be more on this later.

HalfSigma, no they don't.

Part of what Foseti and co are trying to impress upon their readership is that the doublethink related to HBD denial is exceptionally strong. Progressives will never, ever admit that they don't actually believe HBD is false. But that doesn't change the fact that they act as if it is true. Why do they do this? Because their tribe demands allegiance, in the form of submission of will. Humans have evolved to be fiercely loyal to their tribe, as long as it holds power. And oh, does it hold power!

Thus, you can shove bamboo under their fingernails, you can pierce their skin with hooks, you can stretch them on the rack, and never, ever, ever, will they admit that they don't believe HBD is false. To do so is to commit social suicide, which, to a human, might be worse than the standard kind.

In support of his argument, HS has this to say:
This is like saying that religious people are secret atheists.
HS, that's exactly what we're saying.

What we need to do is start changing the system so it becomes less rather than more democratic.
No! You're doing it wrong! Look, when you say "what we need to do is..." you're speaking democratically. This is why reactionary bloggers won't ever change the world. As a whole, our internal language is so hopelessly mutilated that we can't even begin to think correctly.

I remember watching Pat Buchanan with my father on Sundays as a kid fondly. The modus operandi of the modern state is to use its peripheral agents to murder the careers and reputations of its enemies. The USSR was much less secure, so its methods were much less subdued. Does that make the organisms fundamentally different, though?

This immediately brought to mind images of a young Brezhnev-era Soviet lying stomach-down on his bed with his hands clasped under his chin looking fondly at the image of Alexey Stakhanov.

I am utterly convinced that East Asians are the master race, at least until the Persians get their act together.


  1. The reason for calling ourselves "neoreactionaries" is that you're not interested in Bonald because he's a Christian. The "orthosphere" reactionaries are out there, and we can talk to them, up to a point. We're something else.

    Neoreactionary is undoubtedly very bad branding for a political party. Now who's thinking like a democrat? I'm not planning a run for office, I'm classifying a dozen or so bloggers.

    There's a warning in the analogy with neoconservative, one that I don't mind being reminded of. There's another warning in the contradiction between wanting to return to royalty/autocracy, and defining a political philosophy which is new. There's a third warning in the fact that fascism could reasonably be classified as "neoreactionary". We've a long way to go, and blinding ourselves to dangers or weaknesses this early must be a mistake.

    "Autocratist" is good too, though. I do like that it's taking the thing that actually makes the significant difference -- the absence of division or competition for power.

  2. I assume you guys admire Lee Kwan Yew, who was the competent autocrat and architect of Singapore's rise. However, he is about the only good autocrat in world history. All others have been bad.

    Be careful what you wish for in this autocracy business. You might actually get it.