HRx Takes Its Exit

mussolini_with_bi-planes

It’s not natural for ideological units to maintain a unified big tent for long, history has little precedent of it. Even millennial old institutions like the Catholic Church or the Chinese Empire had considerable splintering during their golden ages. For a marginalized rebellious current, like the contemporary Far-Right, division is much more likely. Not only are rival camps inevitable, they are probably good for us.

I was inspired to pen this post after reading a wonderful four part series by Reactionaryfuture. As a few readers may be aware, Froude Society’s first public notice was voicing reservation to Landian Neoreaction on Xenosystems. A foundational purpose of my writing is to strengthen doctrinally pure, anti-Whig, Reaction. Simply put, Neoreaction is liberal and must be undermined as the standard bearer of the emerging Brahminate.

Never one to shy from the terms “Rightist” or “Reactionary”, I wholeheartedly embrace the distinction #HRx (Heroic Romantic Reaction), as the enumerated rival of NRx. (Credit to Land for coining the term and making it popular, it’s okay the acronym was made up for us.) Let’s examine what distinguishes the two parties.

Moldbug, by laying an immense foundation, was complex enough to be interpreted in very distinct manners. NRx concentrates on his economic writings and proposed solutions: stockholder sovereigns, Patchwork, block-chain protocols, exit, financial incentives, Austrianism, butt coin, ‘the reset’. Alternatively, HRx concentrates on his reading suggestions and historical/international writings: Carlyle worship, high-Toryism/Jacobitism, classical international law, Absolute monarchy, generalist  historiography, imperialism apologia, political theory, and the general aesthetic. It’s fair enough to say that neither side is willing to embrace the whole package; unless Mencius comes back and picks a side we’re going to keep on squabbling over who are his true followers. Regardless, we all agree on MM’s critiques of Democracy, bureaucracy, progressive morality, and the dominant institutions.

I believe this dichotomy is fundamentally spiritual. NRx is a materialist ideology, post-Ancap in essence, it’s no surprise then that many Neoreactionaries started out as Marxists or Libertarians. Conversely, HRx places the metaphysical at the root of all civic affairs. With raw power politics also superseding catallaxy.

The topic at hand is very much so a dichotomy and not a scale. A few this-or-that examples will prove my point: Rule by computer programmers or rule by Kings, Gnon or God(s). Patchwork or Imperivm. Whig or Tory. Mises or Lueger. Protestant or Catholic. British or Continental. Individualist or Tribalist. Modernist or Perennialist. Anglo or Teutonic. Positivistic or Pessimistic. Capitalist or Mercantilist. Realistic or Romantic. Trans-humanism or the Heroic. Corinth or Sparta. Industry or Agriculture. Financial determinism or Political determinism. STEM or the Humanities. Realism or Romanticism. Jew or Gentile. The colour orange or the colour white.

While not all of these are clearcut distinctions they make a lot of sense- NRx is always the former statement, HRx the latter. Being underground for so long, it would expectedly take this many years to figure out how we’re disagreeing so much, and over what.

My suspicion is that it all goes back to the fact that classical liberalism, even in its monarchical pre-1789 version, is effectively Reactionary to everyone not HRx. My neocon friend who reads Macaulay and Blackstone seemed the most radical of counter-revolutionaries a few years ago, now he’s a Straussian traitor who bows to grave false idols. Liberal memes are very hard to break, their illusions can only be defeated by those authors contemporary to the liberal in question. Latent liberalism is what will send any ‘reset’ back on the course to modern madness, purity isn’t just a meme, but a key tenant.

Reaction is a chance to rectify all the wrongs of last four hundred years, not merely the last seventy. NRx may intensely oppose modernity but comes to that conclusion by a rational weighing of pros and cons, not the burning red hand of holy vengeance. Not to discount the commitment of our rivals to resistance, they surely will resist with us nobly. Nevertheless, without embracing the Romantic they will not be able to amass the spiritual energy needed to slay the Adversary. To a disillusioned young Brahmin in search of meaning HRx gives a much more appealing program since it directly satisfies his longing for glory, leadership, and the divine.

Neoreaction isn’t made up of “the trike”, two of the spokes are marginalized and better fit with us here. Techno-commercialism is NRx, one is the other and the other is the one, there is no distinction. If one has any reservations regarding capitalism/economism then EHNN ARRGH EXSC is certainly not the ideology for you. Tech-com thinks of capitalism as some sort of elder-God that must be sacrificed to by all means possible. It does not seek humanities’ redemption but the implementation of a post-human computerized despotism via cyborgs or super machines. Man may be a rough beast but he is our only reliable conduit to what is above and beyond, tech-com forfeits any bets on humanity for good reasons, yet, such a conclusion is untenable for several centuries more and is morally reprehensible. It is betrayal of the entirety of our species to the perceived wills of its own financial and computational tools. The true Reactionary perceives the phenomenal extent of greatness that may be achieved by great men, that fundamentally better results will be achieved by fostering excellence amongst the best of men, rather than tending to inanimate gadgets and lines of code. Disraeli stated it forthright to the materialist liberals of his day:-

That question is this: Is man an ape or an angel? I, my lord, I am on the side of the angels.

Aesthetically, NRx is beholden to two sources, universe of the robots-esque science fiction and the much more admirable Lovecraftian cosmic horror. There is certainly some beauty and grandeur that can be drawn from these reservoirs, nevertheless, they dwell upon very anti-Reactionary things. Primarily a lionization of chaos and entropy. The true Reactionary should hate such, casting it out forthwith!  He aught to strive for growth and structure always, especially so in an environment of pervasive disorder. We may be on the precipice of chaos, but that should only motivate us to strive harder to keep it at bay, to look hither, not down at the abyss. It is similar to the Marxist who obsesses over capitalism to where he cannot think without its presence, yes, it is chaotic out there, we do not need that anti-sucture to think as we do. Why not “Order Patch”, hmm?

Historically “free markets” have in no way been tied to Reactionary leaders or figures, since the position could be identified it was associated with mercantilism. Liberal revolutions: the American, Spanish American, the first French, KuK 1848, were greatly motivated by dissatisfaction with the mercantile policies of the court. Hungarian nationalism and to a lesser extent Italian nationalism, were indistinguishable from the local liberal movements. If one recalls the grievances of the Boston mob they mostly concerned import duties, minor tax for a standing army, and nonsensical “natural rights”. When NRx kvetch about shekels it is clear they have absorbed a tremendous amount of yellow intoxicant. As Rxfuture said, to criticize mercantilist policy as “socialism” demonstrates the narrow vision of our rivals, it is hardly worth a serious repose. Their eyes are so jaundiced that they see Pink when there is only White. Here is Carlyle obliterating libs in LDP:-

“Awake, arise — before you sink to death eternal ! Unnamable destruction, and banishment to Houndsditch and Gehenna, lies in store for all nations that, in angry perversity, or brutal torpor and owlish blindness, neglect the eternal message of the gods, and vote for the Worse while the Better is there. Like owls they say, Barabbas will do ; any orthodox Hebrew of the Hebrews, and peaceable believer in M’Crowdy and the Faith of Leave-alone will do : the Right Honorable Minimus is well enough; he shall be our Maximus ; under him it will be handy to catch mice, and Owldom shall continue a flourishing empire.'”

Firstly, one must wonder what exactly it is about our economics that they find so despicable. Since we hate the international banking cabal™ we would not further any of the financial insanity that is so blatantly criminal. If speculation is under control and the currency is stabilized any state with an able population will meet production needs. What exactly do you need more “growth” for? Over production, excess supply, short sighted planning, egregious waste, are all undesirable, not desirable. Cost of living, as any progressive could tell you, is a small fraction of total wealth available, this is quite advantageous to a wise sovereign seeking stability. Augustus gave the plebs a grain dole and public shows, was he a pinko too, Hurlock? Welfare may be dysgenic but the market is hardly much better, poor and stupid people regardless of the superstructure have more children with birth controls available. An authoritarian eugenics system plus patriarchy is the only way to guarantee human stock moves in the right direction. Neither of which are compatible with personal freedoms and individual rights, and from that, thus too, your precious markets.

Secondly, by acknowledging corporate bodies are all of the same organizational essence then one must also admit that allowing a more powerful corporation into the sovereign space disrupts the sovereign’s absolute control. If your “patch” the size of Lebanon allows Seimans or Coke to operate as they please, you’ll soon realize they are the dominate party simply by their size and wealth. USG Empire isn’t just DoD and State, it has levied corporations the world over to its side, it is impossible the whole world will buck democracy simultaneously, therefore, any reacto-society would have to struggle with a business culture still smoking progressive crack. Employees trained by “Five Habits of Highly Effective People” are not going to facilitate Pagan essentialist hierarchy if there isn’t an iron fist to guide them, the invisible hand will not do. Most all countries who are in opposition to the Cathedral also have national catallaxy, though their success varies wildly. It speaks volumes that Land, the defacto leader of tech-com, chooses to reside in the autocratic PRC even though he hails Capitalism as saviour, political structure ultimately takes precedence even to the most materially minded. I agree with Yockey that the Soviet Union was ultimately more Rightist at the end of the day because economics is not part of the Left-Right spectrum of Calrylean-Menciian theory, or at least mostly irrelevant to it. Yockey’s political theory outlined in The Enemy of Europe is closer to trve Rx than any mechanistic illusion wafting up from our festering yellow under-belly.

Why is the additional production of few more widgets apparently worth the socio-cultural costs of capitalism? I have another tough question- does Neoreaction attempt to be not Whigs in any capacity? If so they do not try at it.

In conclusion, illiberal Reaction is taking our leave from quisling revisionists. They are materialists who wish to govern by protocol, philosophically and spiritually joined to our enemies, at the foot if not at the hip. Any man of faith, be him Abrahamic or Pagan, must realize support of these leaders is a sin. They are deceivers who will stab us in the back the second our fight threatens their avarice, if they even take up arms when the time comes… They reject the hero, they reject the sublime, and thus any exoteric link to the Holy on High. Moreover, they do not even pretend to have any solutions for non anglo-civilizations, we speak truths that ring true for all peoples by historical precedent, that good governance and order is always Good. This is not universalist, this is an impetus for imperialism, we must seize, grasp towards, the chance of Imperivm. Let them be content in their insignificant, measly patches– our dreams are grander than a particularistic covetousness. It is Destiny, God is on our side.

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “HRx Takes Its Exit

  1. While not all of these are clearcut distinctions they make a lot of sense- NRx is always the former statement, HRx the latter.

    I don’t think that this is really right. Most in NRx are somewhere in between – in some cases former, in some, latter. Also, I think that Nick Land isn’t even really Neoreactionary – he’s SovCorp-ist, if anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It speaks volumes that Land, the defacto leader of tech-com, chooses to reside in the autocratic PRC even though he hails Capitalism as saviour,

    Not sure why some think Land supports ‘tech com’, just because he occasionally links to technology and science articles? He advocates collapse and reset, which would be very detrimental to the progress of technology and capitalism. Don’t really see this ‘HRx’ thing catching on either. NRx is already small enough that it doesn’t need to be further partitioned.

    Like

  3. On one hand Big Tents are ineffective, ideologically mushy, and open invitations to entryism. In a word: demotism writ small: all the pathologies without the perks of getting actual power.

    On the other hand there is the Narcissism of Small Differences, which seems to me to be equally disempowering, but at any given moment taste sweet.

    I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which of these two equal and opposite errors is more likely to afflict those who comprise the so-called Dissident Right.

    Let us at least agree that navigating between them is in everyone’s interests.

    It seems to me that, in general, Group A can define its own identity and programme without reference to Group B’s identity and programme, and a fortiori without reference to disputable interpretations thereof.

    Like

  4. As a Protestant computer programmer with a deep appreciation for both Carlyle and Fitzhugh, I found this post delightful. (My experience is that faith in the Literal Deus Ex Machina is more intense the less one knows about the actual details of how software works or fails to work.)

    Like

  5. Thanks for this interesting and, in my opinion, accurate assessment of the situation.

    Since becoming a Catholic, I don’t bother identifying as NRx or HRx or whatever, other than simply to say, “I am a Catholic Reactionary of the old school.” Much of what I find in Moldbug, is already present in prior writers (even the “Cathedral,” as in Don Felix Sarda y Salvany’s Liberalism is a Sin), a fact which Moldbug acknowledged.

    I shared a thought related to your article, on VD’s site a while ago:

    “Neoreactionaries are more or less irreligious persons, who realized the Reactionaries were right in their battle against the Apostasy, so far as a good polity goes (and hence may praise tradition, meritocracy, hierarchy, out of utilitarian concerns), but who obviously can’t view the Apostasy with the same eyes as an old-school Reactionary.”

    Often, when I read Jim’s Blog, I marvel both at how correct his prescriptions often are, yet how cold and spiritually barren it is. On the one hand, it reminds me of how the Church has always taught that her moral prescriptions are the Natural Law, and can be discerned plainly by non-Catholics through Reason alone. On the other hand, I realize that only a particular kind of steely intellect will cleave to these things without the heroic, “romantic” and spiritual elements. In such persons, an abundance and rigor of intellect can compensate for being great-souled, to some extent, at least in clarity of perception. But, as you say, if the Reaction is ever going to slay the giant, it will have to fan that fire of virtue and nobility – that magnanimity (“great-soulness”) – that has filled European man for so long, now. Perhaps a few Autistes will be thrilled by Techno-Commercialism, and will have a purely rational appreciation of the trappings of Tradition even as they “enjoy the decline.”

    But how grey and bloodless! Let the Western man fly the bright banner again, and fight for God, for the καλός κ’ ἀγαθός, and for the Fatherland.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. With a modest change in emphasis, to the effect of “HRx Takes Its Exit” –> “HRx is better than NRx”, my quibble with this would disappear. Makes valid and interesting points, but the hyperbolic exit language is a bit much.

    Like

  7. If Moldbug, materialist ex-ancap, can nevertheless invoke Carlyle, Kingship, classical International law, then I don’t see why I can’t. Sorry, not going to stop, even if you claim that as your turf.

    Liberalism sets rationality against tradition. NRx would be OK with that if the rationality were rigorous; however the liberals let their attempts at rationality morph into a religion. Anything opposed to tradition is labelled “rational”, even if it isn’t.

    If reaction defines itself as opposition to rationality, which in the past it largely has, that is a mistake of the same kind.

    The original element of NRx, which is a new thing where liberalism, rationality and reaction are not, is to support tradition not because it is anti-rational, but because it is (to a large degree) rational.

    Like

    1. Anomaly,

      I apologize for the late response.

      Would it be accurate to describe your reply as a definition of Dark Enlightenment, which is the recognition that modern conventional wisdom is mistaken?

      Like

  8. “STEM or the Humanities”

    It’s still “Humanities School A or Humanities School B” no matter how you look at it. Where School A has postmodernist inclinations (wherefrom, as their ambiance, a merited inferiority complex vis-a-vis STEM, whereby jargon-theft is inevitable, because what’s a peacock without its feathers) while School B is openly Romantic (and, since self-conscious, will be spared the flogging).

    Like

  9. Hey Froude, you might want to look at this reply to you made by Mark Citadel:

    Far too confrontational for my liking, but… I can’tehelp in reading this to think he actually makes some substantive points, yet this really is way too intricate to get into in depth. I’d first point out that NRx from what I’ve seen is quite diverse, and I’d think Land would agree that there are NeoReactionaries who take a different stance on subjects like economics than he does. The idea of NRx using the enemy’s tools against them is quite accurate, but I don’t think this pro/con approach need be an antithesis to what so-called ‘HRx’ believes. In fact the metaphysical and scientific approach can actually complement one another, at least in the form of attacking Liberalism. Even Guenon, who lambasted ‘profane science’ said that it was a positive element if it stemmed from the correct metaphysical understanding.
    It is also very interesting he thinks NRx appeals to chaos, as I’ve had prominent NeoReactionaries denounce any such notions. I think he really is defining NRx in Landian terms, and interestingly I wonder if there is a Landian-Duginite synthesis on the horizon. Anyway, I’ve made my partialities to chaos as an attack maneuver quite clear, although of course I am no anarchist.
    It’s annoying because the author is so confrontational, but he is actually raising legitimate points that I have pressed, and in very articulate terms! Maybe some would criticize me for being too nice, but I generally think dialogue between camps in disagreement over certain things but in opposition to the same thing, is positive. I’m very much a bridge builder, hence why I have entered into discussions with Pagans on Adam Wallace’s Youtube channel recently to wonderful effect and discourse!
    My message to this author:
    1) Don’t become too puritanical.
    2) I basically agree with 80% of what you said.
    3) Don’t define NRx as just Nick Land. He’s an intellectual heavyweight, but he isn’t the only one.

    The link to that site is https://ask.fm/MarkCitadel .

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s