To be reactionary is to be anti-revolutionary. The more of them you’re against, the more reactionary you are. You cannot stop revolutions by having more revolutions. You can only stop them by restoration. The act of restoration is The Reaction®. When The Reaction® comes, revolutions will cease, and civilizations can go about their business of building civilization again. The Reaction® will be ours, so long as we can hold it.
So over the past few weeks, we’ve been having much discussion (and here and here and here and here and a zillion other places) in the Reactosphere about the Spandrellian Trichotomy and what voices make up the reactionary consensus.
I am interested in the content of the consensus. What can Catholic Traditionalists, Ethno-Nationalists, and Techno-Commercialists, and assorted Particularists and non-brain-dead PUAs agree on? It must be a consensus of sufficient breadth and metaphysical humility to be attractive to the vast majority of those who see little but the death of civilization on our current path. At the same time, the consensus must be of sufficient specificity, depth, and rigor so that it cannot be Cathedralized and thereby neutralized. When The Reaction® comes, the Cathedral must be dead, “completely dead”, and no pill of Miracle Max must be allowed to work on it.
I tried fleshing out some of this consensus here (Sharlach’s first public post and wow was it a duesy!). Now that I have a blog, I can get the bullets to work. And those were with a few addenda:
- Hierarchical social structures: Hierarchy is not only not bad, but natural and absolutely essential to the proper functioning of any social structure;
- Sex Realism: Sex differences are real, are ordained by nature or nature’s god or both, and we ignore them at our peril;
- Race Realism: Race and group differences are real, are ordained by nature or nature’s god or both, and we ignore them at our peril;
- Memetic Realism (“Deep Heritage”): Traditional folkways tend to be real, i.e., non-ideological, and naturally arising adaptations to social realities, which therefore represent pretty good (at least) local solutions to very (or intractably) complex problems;
- Economic Realism (later badly dubbed “Microeconomics” and we still await a name for the phenomenon): In any economy where an absolutely fixed supply of (properly divisible) money is deemed impossible or impractical, there is ipso facto a con game going where the issuance of money has itself become a political weapon;
- (Hyper)Federalism: Local optima rarely scale well; subsidiarity; the right of exit must be guaranteed;
- Social Justice: If social justice is anything at all, it is merely justice;
- Democracy: The best and brightest of any society were ordained by nature or nature’s god or both to lead. Expansion of the franchise beyond that natural aristocracy is tragicomically foolish;
- Politics: Defined as competition for parcels of power over unrelated others, usually as a means of redistributing wealth, politics is rightly minimized in any sane society.
In short, there is an agreement about reality as we see it. As I’ve discussed at length with my many betters over at Nick Land’s, (neo)reaction can be seen as a disposition toward truth, varnished or otherwise.
Is that enough? Do these points define the core (neo)reaction? A core? Are there objections? How deep does the agreement go? Is there anything else we happen to agree on?
[Update: Thanks Christopher. Yes, “hierarchy”… editing html in plain text produces so many red squigglies that you tend to ignor them…]