tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8849718676238329149.post2790423700699842320..comments2022-09-14T11:35:49.368-04:00Comments on The Watchword is Excelsior: Anissimov and "NRx"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00447836069426636584noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8849718676238329149.post-35269887569880535632015-12-22T15:07:16.747-05:002015-12-22T15:07:16.747-05:00This prediction turned out to be remarkably presci...This prediction turned out to be remarkably prescient, even if the predicted reasons for it were totally wrong.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16050831858972171741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8849718676238329149.post-14257219085284635322014-06-03T10:41:48.584-04:002014-06-03T10:41:48.584-04:00Thanks for your comment.
I hope you noticed that ...Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />I hope you noticed that this was written back in February, long before Trannygate.<br /><br />You're right that Anissimov is excessively self-important and I don't doubt that much of his attack was seizing upon what he believed was an opportunity to take down his rival, Laliberte. But he's no master strategist; it appears that Laliberte is very cozy with a lot of the leading lights of neoreaction while Anissimov has routinely picked fights with them. A bad move for someone seeking status.<br /><br />My broader argument in this piece is that Anissimov at least comes to conclusions about the issues that neoreaction discusses. I'm no monarchist but at least he's taken a position from which we can talk about practical matters. Neoreaction seems to be allergic to settling on answers or even coming close.<br /><br />In the current controversy, Anissimov--for whatever personal reasons--raised the long-dormant issue of where neoreaction stands on social conservatism. The only conclusion that's emerged is that it's okay to talk to people who violate your personal principles and that it's not okay to tell people who they can talk to. I don't believe that this was the question that was raised. <br /><br />I think that this whole situation indicates that neoreaction is going nowhere. In- and out-grouping is more important than anything, with oaths and societies. Just the other day, Laliberte spoke very condescendingly toward members of the Dark Enlightenment subreddit and said something like, "Only rubes think that the real discussion takes place on Twitter."<br /><br />What's been apparent for a while is that neoreactionaries are more interested in forming a club of scholarly-prose writers and contrarians than in assembling a platform. The recent work a few months ago to settle on some premises was a step in the right direction.<br /><br />As I've said before, my attraction to this part of the Web was because I thought it really was about coming to conclusions. We've had 70 years of full-bore anti-racism and it isn't working. We've had 40 years of full-bore feminism and there's only more hysteria. The list of progressive experiments goes on and on with very little success. I realized that our model of the self, society and government was wrong. I was happy to find others who saw that the underlying philosophies of our age were the problem, not any particular issue.<br /><br />But keep in mind that these objections are not new but, in the past, critics were each attacking one single tentacle of the Leviathan. Mencken got me thinking about the failures of democracy. Bork got me thinking about the problems of social liberty. Burke got me thinking about revolution. The Dark Enlightenment seemed to realize that all of these errors came from the same source. <br /><br />I didn't realize that neoreaction was the cult of Moldbug. I consider him an excellent synthesizer of objections to modernity, not the originator of those objections. I also didn't realize that the interest in discussing contrary ideas was a pose for social jockeying. But here we are, with neoreaction faced with the choice between discussing an idea or damning an outcast. What choice have they made, again?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00447836069426636584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8849718676238329149.post-75370988160926281842014-06-03T09:32:01.023-04:002014-06-03T09:32:01.023-04:00> Why? Because he is the only one among them wh...> Why? Because he is the only one among them who is pointing to a historical form of government--monarchy--and saying, "Hey, that could work."<br /><br />If Anissimov ends up purged, no, it will not be for that reason.<br /><br />It will be because he is insanely self-aggrandizing, offers few new insights, is trying to bootstrap HIMSELF to be some sort of monarch, and is acting as if he is already one by telling Bryce and others who they are and are not allowed to talk to.<br /><br />Nick B Steves sums it up well:<br /><br />http://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/the-final-word-on-trannygate/#more-2174<br /><br />he slippery path of attempting by private and public admonitions to get people to not be friends or talk with someone because he happens to be friends or talk with someone you don’t like, you have gone beyond a pale which separates serious adult men from 13 year-old girls (with apologies to 13 year old girls). I’m sorry, but such an action is not worthy of any man, much less a reactionary man, much much less a reactionary man who seeks to be worthy of leadership over other capable men.<br /><br />Tell yourself all you want that Anissimov is being read out of serious Nrx because he's a monarchist, but it's not true. He's become a laughing stock and is being progressively excluded not for his thoughts but for his juvenile king-of-the-sandhill drama.morlockphttp://twitter.com/morlockpnoreply@blogger.com