What Neo-Reaction Consists In? Three Points: The Cathedral Criticism, NeoCameralism, and “Formalism”

(RE: http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/06/what-is-neoreaction/ )

( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan, yarvin/mencius is a cosmopolitan, and I am an anglo empiricist. This is not an opinion, but a statement of the method of argument employed. And the differences in our approaches demonstrate the weaknesses of the hermeneutic cosmopolitan, and german rationalist methods compared to the anglo empirical method.

In this response I try to hint at why propertarianism is very much part of the dark enlightenment, but post-NRx in the sense that it’s an empirical rather than rational or moral formation. )

[N]ot that I mean to act as a critic, or to draw attention away from your excellent post, but you might need to add the third point in the first position.

First and foremost it is a criticism of the Cathedral Complex: Academy, State and Media, and the use of propaganda to perpetuate detrimental falsehoods.

I would argue that the criticism of the Cathedral Complex as a False Promise using deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda, is the first principle of Neo-Reaction, and the most effective content in the neo-reactionary movement.

NeoCameralism I agree with. The state is a corporation acting in the interests of its management and staff at the expense of the customers long term interest, by the constant sale of territorial, physical, cultural, and normative capital in exchange for short term consumption (r-selection). The problem is, how do we construct commons: territorial, physical, cultural, and normative while at the same time, eliminating the privatization of those commons that is the means by which the Academy, State, Media complex sustains and expands itself?

Formalism attempts but fails to capture what one intuits in its use, which is why I’ve restated it in greater depth as a complete philosophical system

It is the failure of formalism (because the author is a hermeneuticist of the cosmopolitan jewish tradition) that prevents neo-reaction from institutional actionability. Unless expressible as law (the anglo analytic and empirical tradition) it must be propagated as religion using the same propaganda mechanisms that the cathedral complex relied upon, but without possessing either the assets of distribution or equalling the incentives that the cathedral promises. This is non-logical.

In propertarianism and testimonialism I have created a formal system of thought that unifies biology, psychology, morality, sociology, philosophy, law, economics, and war into a formal logic (Formalism). Propertarianism inverts democracy to a market for commons between the classes, not dependent upon assent, but upon dissent: survival under universal standing under law. (prohibition on parasitic outcomes). A law which is made possible by the formal unification of the fields.

Small changes in the law – the constitution upon which laws are constructed – make a reactionary program possible. But in this case, it is not reactionary, but revolutionary – not restitution but reformation.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

3 responses to “What Neo-Reaction Consists In? Three Points: The Cathedral Criticism, NeoCameralism, and “Formalism””

Leave a Reply