Today’s post will not present any sort of argument, refute any neoreactionary claims or seek to combat the movement. This blog post is dedicated to giving information, to laying out facts of the neoreactionary movement as laid out by New Reaction itself. Today is dedicated to summarizing the existing blocs and divisions within New Reaction, as outlined by neoreactionaries.
Alright, I lied. It’s true that the bulk of this post will indeed cover that topic. However, this will be followed up by a very important “so what?” section, a question important to ask and answer when presented with any sort of information. Let’s get to it, then!
New Reaction finds its roots, it original radical reactionaries from which the rest of the movement bloomed, in Christian Traditionalists. The name essentially summarizes the movement: a move back towards theocracy or a religious monarchy (nominated by divine mandate and ruling through divine right, of course), enforcement of a literal or near-literal reading of the Christian holy texts, enforcement of traditional values, and everything else one might expect that goes along with all that. Why are Christian Traditionalists classified as neoreactionaries? Firstly, there are the shared beliefs, from the belief in an autocratic structure of government (though based on a belief in divine right rather than the more (pseudo)-scientific reasoning of much of New Reaction) to the belief in traditional values (though once again, based on a divine commandment than on the more reasoned approach of other neoreactionaries). Essentially, opinions are shared, but their basis largely is not. However, more important is that, unlike Classical Reaction but like New Reaction, Christian Traditionalists believe in a “return” to a social, political, and economic order that never actually existed, but merely based on past values. This Christian Traditionalist outlook emerged much before New Reaction and certainly served as an inspiration to the movement, though it is debatable whether it can be considered a proper part of New Reaction. Nonetheless, neoreactionaries acknowledge Christian Traditionalism as a real bloc within their movement.
The other major “impurity”, so to speak, in New Reaction is a group called the ethno-nationalists. This group is a step or two closer to “proper” New Reaction in that they share the belief in racial or ethnic superiority or inferiority, and to this end advocate the redrawing of national borders and the internal purging of government bureaucracies and voting rolls in order to concentrate their preferred race or ethnicity within their nation. By getting rid of the naturally impure groups in society, and by ensuring that the ruling elite is relatively homogenous, ethno-nationalists hope to solve all of modern society’s problems, seemingly caused by these impurities. This group thus aligns itself with New Reaction due to their shared beliefs in Human Biological Diversity and in the importance of hierarchy. However, ethno-nationalism diverges in that, in the words of one neoreactionary, ethno-nationalists underestimate the problem, meaning that they fail to realize that government is the root of many of modern society’s problems: rule by majority, egalitarianism (even within a given ethnic or racial group) and so on.
So what? Well, it’s clear enough that the movement is divided against itself a fair bit as it stands. But it is also quite clear that the two “impure” branches never had a chance at hitting the big-time: Christian Traditionalism relies on a strong sense of faith that is less and less present in modern society, while ethno-nationalists are too easily dismissed (and rightly so) as blatant racists and even fascists. Meanwhile, proper New Reaction is growing in appeal: its relatively scientific approach towards its beliefs grants it a legitimacy not seen in many other ideologies, and one particularly appealing to individuals in the STEM fields and certain groups of atheists, both growing demographics in the modern population. It gives white males a reason to believe that they are objectively superior without making them admit to racism, and gives this large demographic a convenient scapegoat for the problems of the world. It appeals to libertarians distrustful of populist governments and all manner of individuals disenchanted with what they see as the degradation of democracy, whether due to progressivism or conservatism. It seems fairly clear that pure New Reaction will not only soon dominate the other branches of the movement, but grow much faster than any other related ideology possibly could. New Reaction seems weak now because of its small size and internal divisions; this will not last!
