There is a certain basic amount of social conservatism which must be met among all those who label themselves “neoreactionary”. For instance, someone who is as socially liberal as the average member of the Democratic party would not qualify as a neoreactionary, even if they insisted upon using the label. I want to say that this wouldn’t be controversial among anybody, but I don’t even know anymore. That is a profoundly negative sign, a sign that we may be falling prey to Conquest’s Second Law: Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. In other words, leftward drift is insidious.That didn't take long at all.
“Neo” is not an infinite license to throw social conservatism out the window and allow libertarians to redefine neoreaction as “politically schizophrenic leftish anarcha-feminism” or whatever confused Whiggery their minds are still stuck on. The “neo” is a new discovery of reactionary thought, not the complete mutation of reactionary thought until it is in lockstep with modern liberal licentiousness. Any “reactionary”, neo or otherwise, who cannot react against liberalism and progressivism, is not a reactionary at all, nor a “neoreactionary.”Lots more at the link. I have seen this going around. It's basically the "democracy sucks" wing of the Left, which has always existed. For the progressives, they need to take one step to keep the game going: end elections and seize power. Permanently remove the threat of the yahoos. Yeah, Obama won and the demographics look good, but more Hispanics are checking the white box on the census. You don't think they'd ever vote for Palin, do you?
Anissimov also talks about the libertarians. They are in it for the process. They'll let the reactionaries go off and form their state of reaction, but they won't move there, they'll live in the low tax/socially liberal country that probably, if ever person in America who wanted that society moved there, would have a population not exceeding 3 million. But they won't like the state of reaction. And since the state of reaction will have a very small, but very powerful government that will attract the K-selected, it would quickly become the "hate state" and "something should have to be done about it" would become the popular opinion in the popular opinion forming progressive land.
There was a comment thread on dark enlightenment or neoreactionaries on reddit. One commenter said he was for the self-determination aspect (i'm glossing over a lot of details) and a DE/NRxer replied, what if that leads to very socially conservative society where pornography is banned, but everyone is cool with it? The commenter replied they'd start smuggling porn into that country. That describes the attitude of many (but far from all) libertarians.
A couple of days ago, Anissimov wrote The Purpose of Reactionaries
As reactionaries, we must reject behaviors and lifestyles which are destructive to strong families. Divorce, men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, those who promote inter-gender conflict, men and women rejecting intimacy, bearing children out of wedlock; all these follies threaten the future and strength of our people. Societies that embrace them will die, those that reject them will live.To the list add: reject pornography. People may struggle with that, but one must be firmly against it and seek to minimize it.
Ramzpaul also had an excellent summary of what is wrong with the PUA community at the end of this video:
The advice goes for individuals, but also for community. To build is to exclude. When a sculptor takes a block of stone, he does not add to it, he chisels it away. Inclusion is a fool's errand. Inclusion is a doctrine of progressivism: multiculturalism and "tolerance", in which tolerance means except everything and exclude nothing. The point isn't that reactionaries need decide how to exclude people, it is that a reactionary society excludes people because it is pursuing the goals such as order, stability, low time preference. A healthy reactionary/socially conservative society recognizes that divorce is like an infectious disease. Tolerance for weakness and sin among us will not help lift us up, but drag more of us down. Tolerate r-selected behaviors and they will spread. Enforce K-selected norms and they will dominate.
Right-wing societies survive because they fight to preserve order amidst chaos, left-wing society let's the entropy come. This is perhaps one of the best descriptions of this aspect of a right-wing society:
The left says: come on in, the water's fine. Today, everyone is in the ocean. There is no dry land, not much larger than a church or a house anyway. To reclaim the land from the sea takes a mighty effort, but to begin you must start pumping out the water.
The "Faustian" alternative to "classic" civilization really is no civilization at all. Goethe's tragedy remains the great modern epic. Faust has exhausted philosophy and science before signing up with Mephistopheles. At the end of his misadventures, his final hope is to live among a free people on free soil, on land reclaimed from the sea, an existence so precarious that it would rule out the cardinal sin of complacency. United against a sea that at any moment might rush in, Faust's people would live in a state of constant mobilization. One wonders if Goethe would have recognized his ideal in modern Israel. Tragically, however, Faust employs tyrannical methods to advance his project, which turns out to be delusional. Because Faust never ceased to strive through all his failed projects, Goethe allows his soul to be saved. That offers scant comfort to the rest of us, who observe that Faust left nothing but ruin behind him in all his striving.