The Necessity of a Neoreactionary Doctrine

The Necessity of a Neoreactionary Doctrine

By Arthur Richard Harrison

In the early days, neoreaction did not need an articulated set of doctrinal premises: we all knew each other (again, at least as much as anyone can know anyone else online), and we knew who was who. We knew who was in and who was out. And there was no one, really, who wanted to be ‘in’ but was rejected by a significant percentage of us.

Now, however, our movement numbers in the hundreds at least (gauging by my number of Twitter followers; it’s possible there are many more that I am not aware of) and we dont, and indeed cant, all know each other on anything like a personal level. Moreover, we are not all going to get along, realistically speaking. It wouldn’t be beneficial in any way to name names or talk about specifics, but I can assure all my readers, from experience, that there are already people in the neoreaction who have all kinds of personal problems with each other.

If our movement, then, is to remain a meaningful, purposeful school of thought or even broad collection of schools, we need some kind of doctrinal agreement. Social bonds are not enough to hold together a group of this size. And if we dont have anything in common in terms of goals and/or methods we’re not a meaningful grouping.

Now, we must avoid stating this doctrine too narrowly. I would not claim, for example, that one must be a traditional monarchist to be a neoreactionary. However, one certainly cannot be a democrat and be a neoreactionary. If neoreaction is allowed to be transformed into a pro-democracy movement, a great deal of work will have been for nought.

I dont intend to attempt to articulate the definitive neoreactionary doctrine here; a great deal of work has been done on that already by Michael Anissimov. Also, it’s not quite the same thing, but some related work has been done by Bryce LaLiberte in his ‘Neoreactionary Canon’.

Rather, my point here is to underscore the need for those of us who are established voices in the neoreactionary world to agree on at least a few of the basic doctrines that distinguish us from the other ideologies now circulating. Let us learn from the history of American traditionalist conservatism. Against the Communist threat, traditionalists made a deal with the neoconservative/libertarian devil under Reagan. They were absorbed into ‘movement conservatism’, and have never recovered. A similar phenomenon occurred in the UK under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Something similar could very easily happen to neoreaction. There are a number of ways it could go, but here’s one possibility: A socially-leftish ancap reads a little Moldbug. He then decides to import his ideas of ‘anti-racism’, ‘anti-sexism’, ‘anti-transphobia’, and the like into the general framework of something like Moldbug’s Patchwork (which, after all, bears some resemblance to Ancapistan.) He talks a lot about ‘exit’ and he emphasises the ‘CEO’ model of rulership over the royal model. \ He then sells this ‘new neoreaction’ as the ‘moderate’ or ‘rational’ form of the ideology, more palatable to progressives as it is to a great extent either compatible with their own ideas or impotent to oppose them. As a result, genuine neoreactionaries are marginalised and dismissed as ‘extremists’ even within neoreaction.

Make no mistake: this will be attempted. Something very like this is happening as we speak. And unless we can clearly identify, to each other and the world, who is and is not a neoreactionary, we will be incredibly vulnerable to all manner of entryism and subversion. The only way to mark our borders is with a shared doctrinal core. I may attempt to contribute to that core at some point in the future, but for now I think Anissimov has done a decent job identifying the main points, and I hope that I have done a decent job explaining why it’s necessary.

6 comments on “The Necessity of a Neoreactionary Doctrine

  1. […] about ‘entryism’ and ideological entropy, leading to some thoughtful responses such as this (from Avenging Red […]

  2. […] first entryist attack. Related: The necessity of neoreactionary doctrine. Related: A warning on the risk. Related: Avoiding libertarian HIV. Related: Premises of […]

  3. Neon Shadows says:

    Surely as a Christian you know that dogma is not enough to prevent heresy? Or even a visible organisation?

  4. Me says:

    I recently came across this blog/website and found your take on female behavior from an “evolutionary” point of view very thought provoking, especially when I went on to read about your Christian perspective. I then came to this page and am starting to read about your overarching philosophy as they pertain to government and how it should be structured.

    Now, to make it clear, I do not want to come off as a troll seeking to attack you, but I do feel the need to comment. First, as a Christian myself and an American, I completely abhor the idea of monarchy and would rather die than kneel to any man simply because of who his parents were or because he can claim some long line of succession back to the original man who conquered my ancestors or was appointed by them to lead. I find this to be profoundly incompatible to Christianity because it assumes that my rights come from a King, one who should be followed regardless of how wicked or corrupt his leadership. We have countless examples of the folly of kings and the evil that stems from them in English history alone, let alone going back to Ancient Rome or The history of Israel. That being said, I do not think absolute democracy is a viable form of government either, because the tyranny of the mob can be just as evil as the tyranny of a single man (or woman). Second, perhaps I am mistaken but it seems like you’ve lumped neoconservatives with libertarians as if they are the same or share many similarities, which could not be further from the truth.

  5. […] ‘entrismo’ e entropia ideológica, levando a algumas respostas pensativas tais como esta (de Avenging Red […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s