Two Ways of Looking at Sex

Way #1:granny
Way #2:lifehackThese images bring to mind a quote by James A. Donald from earlier this year:

I suggest the root of civilization is patriarchy.

Firstly, patriarchy with monogamy gives men posterity, and civilization is what men build for posterity. In a society where most men do not have children or do not know who their children are, do not raise their sons, they have no reason to work, to save, to invest, to build, nor to fight, to defend, to conquer, so their society leaves behind nothing for future historians to remember them by.

This is a rather simple assertion. Leftist / “hippie” counterarguments/thoughts usually go like this (all actual arguments I’ve heard from real people):

  • Anyone who repeats these arguments is a failure who is bitter about women.
  • I know inside that the rise in promiscuity and birth out of wedlock is slowly breaking down civilization, but people will always have kids, so everything will turn out all right in the end.
  • I don’t really care about the slow deterioration of civilization as long as I get a tryst with Jeremy Meeks.
  • Thinking about the great increase in promiscuity and lack of marriage or motherhood makes me uncomfortable, and we should ignore it.
  • Thinking about marriage and family is boring, we should all experience as much pleasure as possible, and not worry about abstractions like “civilization”.
  • Promiscuity and births out of wedlock are a symptom of weaker men.
  • Polyamory is the wave of the future, we will all raise our children in polyamorous village-like groups.
  • …and so on.

Here’s my attempt at my very best, steelmanned progressive counterargument:

“Thanks to technology, men and women can contribute equally to civilization now, so family arrangements that are specifically beneficial to men (such as long-term monogamy) are no longer necessary. Such arrangements would have been necessary to motivate men in the past, but now, the lessened motivation men experience is more than counterbalanced by the increased motivation felt by women who now have more equal footing, both in the home and at work. The end result is an overall improvement for everyone, even if some men are disappointed in the outcome.”

Am I warm?

Neoreaction is Analytic Rightward Synthesis

Neoreaction (NRx) has been described as a trichotomy between Scientifically Aware Ethno-Nationalism, Techno-Commercialism, and Throne-and-Altar Traditionalism. While it’s true that many self-identified NRxys identify with one or the other of these branches, and NRx certainly contains elements of each, I would argue that NRx is not simply a mix of these.

NRx is the analytic rightward synthesis of the Ethno-nationalist, Techno-commercialist, and Traditionalist insight. It takes elements of each, and synthesizes them into something that actually ends up being to the right of each. Further, “analytic” means that NRx takes the sacredness structures of those components seriously, but studies and justifies them from the outside, rather than buying into them from the inside.

Each component has some major “red-pill” insight that deviates strongly from the mainstream consensus, and throws them far to the right of the Overton window. Let’s have a look and see what NRx says about each.

Ethno-Nationalists (Ethnats) know that humans evolved, and that evolution applies above the neck, so that different people are different; by natural selection, populations of people are smarter or dimmer, more aggressive or more docile, more or less clannish, more or less altruistic, more or less conscientious, as well as a million dimensions of compatibility with cultural structures. The core insight is that approximately all behaviours are heritable, and different races and possibly even subspecies of humans are meaningful abstractions.

On top of this, Ethnats often add a level of sacredness and in-group feeling with their own people, and ascribe an almost metaphysical importance to race and culture, and thus a strong opposition to the integrative multiculturalism that would erase that identity (as opposed to separative multiculturalism, which they like).

Ethnats don’t have a strong theory on other aspects of politics, and thus often default to the mainstream socialist and liberal -leaning tendencies in those areas. They also can sometimes value Identity so highly that they will advocate extremely disruptive measures like mass-deportation. See for example the political program of the Northwestern Front.

So we have the insight and the sacredness of ethnats; HBD, and Identity, and their blind spots; Economics and Social Structure. Neoreaction incorporates the HBD insights, analyzes Identity as an important social technology with strong effects on the quality of a polity, but realizes that uniform racial membership (or whatever) is neither necessary nor sufficient for a working polity, and pulls its economic and social policy from elsewhere. Many neoreactionaries, myself included, do feel a strong ethnic and cultural identity, but in our capacity as neoreactionaries as such, we put that aside in favour of the outside analytic view.

Techno-Commercialists (Techcoms) know that wealth is created and administration best delivered by unhindered capitalism, competition, culling of inefficiencies, value-free rational-scientific engineering, free exit, and free association within a relatively simple and unintrusive system of law, probably administrated itself by a profitable sovereign corporation. This has a tendency to leave obsolete people out in the cold, create massive social inequalities, and divide people by race and gender, so the mainstream really doesn’t like the fully unhinged version.

Techcoms often go beyond the mere instrumental value of these things and feel that the creation of science and technology, intelligence growth, competition, and an eventual technological singularity are valuable in their own right, not just instrumentally for the creation of wealth.

Pure Techcom, and especially its little brother Anarcho-Capitalism, can tend to lack an analysis of the importance of human biology, social identity, sacred social structures, and social norms and rules. Thus ancaps often end up defaulting to equalism and liberalism, as can be seen with modern open-borders-and-orgies libertarianism, and techcoms desiring a slightly more sophisticated, but still arguably nasty, nihilistic cyberpunk free-exit neocameralism.

Neoreaction incorporates the Neocameralist/Capitalist insight, and some of us even place intrinsic value on intelligence, knowledge, and technology, but again, NRx as such is interested in the instrumental value of techcom, and patches the biocultural and social gaps with insights from elsewhere, so that core NRx goes beyond just techcom.

Lastly, the Traditionalist Reactionaries know that modern social structures like democracy and equalist liberalism are broken and soulless, and often ineffective at organizing a society when compared with their traditional alternatives like Patriarchy, Monarchy, and Christianity. Depending on your theology, traditional social technology is either literally the product of divine revelation, or the product of a long process of cultural refinement and evolution that should not be second guessed so quickly as we have done. (Those alternatives are identical, from my own perspective).

Traditionalism as such is often all about the sacredness of traditional social technology; the value of kneeling before your God and king, the glory of serving him, the spiritual importance of living out a virtuous life in a rooted, patriarchal, religious community. That said, some trads approach it in a much more rationalistic manner.

Unfortunately, traditional social technologies have been disrupted by the massive social effects of our recent material wealth, and have not yet had a chance to adapt to the realities of capitalism or the post-malthusian selection environment. Traditionalists are often naive about economics, and sometimes neglectful of the importance of biology and identity. Further, by taking their sacredness structures so seriously, trads have a hard time reevaluating and redesigning them as necessary.

Neoreaction takes traditional social structures apart to see how they work, and digs through the dustbin of history to find forgotten good ideas, often explicitly analyzing the importance of sacredness while choosing and designing based on historical and theoretical effectiveness rather than convincingness within the mythology. NRx thus comes to similar conclusions as trad reaction while working within a completely different framework. It then further alloys those conclusions with techno-commercialist and HBD insight. Many of us have our sacredness structures around social technology, but in our capacity as neoreactionaries, it’s about the analysis, not the mythos.


If you left it at that I think you’d be 40% of the way to understanding NRx. At its core, it’s a comprehensive analysis incorporating the major insights from different branches of reactionary thought, rather than a simple mix of them. Thus it doesn’t really make sense to ask what branch of NRx one identifies with. It’s like asking a physicist whether they think quantum mechanics or general relativity is more true. The point is that the truth is a synthesis of the component theories, not a disjunction. (This is not to say that such a question is uninteresting, just that it doesn’t quite cut reality at the joints.)

The reason I say that the result is rightward of each component, is that in a simplistic view, there are multiple right-wing insights that Progressivism has tried to ignore, each branch of reactionary thought having recovered one or two, and with NRx attempting to have all of them.

The other 60% is plenty of fun as well, but less explicitly mapped.

Reaction and Authoritarian Fantasies

Some critics of neoreactionary thought (nearly all of them) accuse reactionaries of having fantasies of personally ruling over other people.

When children think about monarchy, that naturally tends to enter their minds. They envision themselves, or their father, as monarchs. What child hasn’t thought about it?

Serious reactionary thought, however, begins when people move beyond this and consider monarchy as a real option for government in the real world, not as an egoistic fantasy. So, ironically, it’s everyone else who only thinks of the organic state as a a self-indulgent fantasy, whereas reactionaries are among the few who take it seriously enough to know their personal power under such a system would be very limited. We’ve arrived at neoreactionary thought through the route of studying what makes for good governance.

The organic state is a natural extension of human nature. Hierarchies emerge naturally among children playing with blocks. The artificial application of ideas such as the democratic process is an unnatural addition; it conflicts with human nature in ways that the organic state does not. If you transported thousands of newborn babies to an unpopulated Eden and observed them grow and organize themselves, their society would be based on the organic state, not democracy. There is no need to postulate a “something extra,” like an obsession with authority, that makes a normal person advocate the organic state. Advocating it and understanding it is our natural condition. It takes a something extra, indoctrination, to make a person believe in a democratic republic. And still, the organic state is constantly bubbling up from beneath the surface.

Part of reactionary thought is accepting the reality of inequality. There are people smarter than you, more just than you, more attractive than you, more ambitious than you; simply better. Society works better when these people naturally rise to the top and preserve their status through family alliances. A democratic society that chooses its leaders through voting is controlled by those who control the media and their advisors in academia telling people how to vote. This fluctuates wildly, causing social and economic chaos.

Accepting the reality of inequality means we realize we are not the best, and probably not close to it. Democrats (in the sense of believers in democracy) like to lie to themselves that they are equal to everyone else. Everyone knows we are not equal, and this system causes problems where it conflicts with reality.

Among reactionaries, our fantasy is to live a normal life without politics. We see the government’s invitation for every citizen to participate in politics as a disaster. Governance, like fine painting, is best performed by experts raised for the role from birth, not by popular vote. Democracy is too many cooks in the kitchen. This elimination of participation in governance by the masses, what Evola called apoliteia, is our goal. In contrast to the Marxist/progressive doctrine, which seeks to politicize absolutely everything in daily life, we seek to depoliticize life and let natural human social reality take its course. Instead of fantasies of power, we have fantasies of only being responsible for local events and circumstances which directly relate to us and our communities.

The motivation for our “love of authoritarianism” (or, as it used to be called, normalcy) is based on our love for order and culture. Everyone knows that a company fails without real leadership. A CEO who is cycled out every four years cannot realistically pursue any long-term projects, and has no incentive to do so. For governments, it is the same. By recreating governments where a ruling family has a personal stake in and deep cultural connection to the people, we anticipate improvements in factors like crime rates, social cohesion, long-term projects, happiness of the people, health of the economy, and so on. We are not utopian—advocating for private government is not a Utopian plan, just a proposal for incremental improvement. To us, private government is common sense.

Of course, our critics will continue to misrepresent us with tactics that are tried and true since the French Revolution, but we must make our stance clear.