At the core of the Reactionary worldview is encouraging organic local variation. This contrasts with the Progressive worldview, which involves imposing progressivism everywhere; the libertarian worldview, which involves imposing liberal values everywhere; and the Democratic worldview, which involves imposing democracy everywhere.
The Brahmins, universalists, ultracalvinists, etc, do not hate “our culture” at all. They have a very distinct culture of their own – with a family tree that spends a remarkable amount of time in Massachusetts, upstate New York, etc, etc. (In Charles Royster’s excellent and only mildly neo-Unionist picture of the Civil War, The Destructive War, he mentions a foreign traveler in 1864 who asked some random American to explain the war. “It’s the conquest of America by Massachusetts,” was the answer. Massachusetts, of course, later went on to conquer first Europe and then the entire planet, the views of whose elites as of 2007 bear a surprisingly coincidental resemblance to those held at Harvard in 1945. But I digress.)
Emphasis mine. History since 1864 is the conquest of the planet by Massachusetts and their values. What we have now is Progressive Universalism, a subcategory of what I would call Enlightenment Universalism. The core of progressive universalism is insulting, condemning, and destroying any culture not in accordance with it, namely anything that is not in alignment with coastal American values. An example would be the national freak-out that occurred when Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson innocently said in an interview that homosexuality was sinful. Another, broader example would be the incessant federalization of the United States since the Civil War and the growing size and dominance of the federal government over state and local governments.
What is operating here is an axis between localism and universalism. Universalists insist that their values be imposed absolutely everywhere. Localists adopt a “live and let live” attitude. Enlightenment universalism is based on a blank slate view of human nature, which says that people everywhere are the same and therefore the same set of values is best for everyone. This is in contrast to a more scientific particularist view which states that people everywhere are different, culturally if not genetically, and therefore not suited to the same values or the same systems. In Liberty or Equality, “arch-liberal of the extreme right” Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn highlights the paralysis of uniformity and how it goes hand in hand with the French Revolution and democratic governments:
The clownish uniformism of post-Revolutionary France has been inherited by all modern liberal governments, and many illiberal ones besides. In its extreme form, in North Korea foreign radio is prohibited and you and your entire family can be sent to a labor camp just for listening to it. In the United States, this drive to uniformity is expressed in various places, from the jokes of late-night talk show hosts (which are completely unfunny to people not on the Massachusetts cultural wavelength) to calls from the President to reduce “income inequality” nationwide.
In contrast, take the geopolitical and cultural diversity of the Holy Roman Empire as an example:
This geopolitical structure is reminiscent of Moldbug’s “Patchwork” model. In this context, hierarchy and not democracy is used as a tool to preserve regional variation. The imposition of democracy on such a structure would just homogenize it and destroy local variation, especially if driven by a post-Puritan and progressive/liberal fanaticism. Progressive/liberal fanaticism is not the only threat; there is also the threat from fascist totalitarianism, which seeks to impose a cookie-cutter uniformity on culture in the same way. Given that fascism was soundly defeated and is almost universally equated with pure evil, I currently consider progressivist uniformism the greater threat, however.
Any kind of universalist uniformism is tiresome. The universalist imperialism of Washington must be identified, resisted, and laughed at. Whether Democrat or Republican, most everyone in present day politics sees government as a tool to impose a certain uniformism on the nation and the world. This is the legacy of democracy and the French Revolution. Democracy says: we all vote, and in the end we all accept the dictates of the vote. We ought to refuse to accept the dictates of any national votes, however. We should build a strong regionalism, with powerful local officials who insulate us from the universalism of Washington. In the longer term, we should aim for smaller states and a breakup of the United States. We are seeing the first inklings of a trend in this direction with proposals to break up California and other states.