IMHO, neo reaction – unlike a political party – is less about engendering action, but more about the acknowledgement and description of reality, as conveyed through articles, blogs, videos, and books. It’s like a think tank, providing resources that politicians, thinkers and business leaders can draw inspiration and information from, without actually getting involved in the nitty-gritty process of politics.
Upon looking at Mike Anissimov’s picture, which bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Pat Buchanan, it occurred to me that neo reaction is mostly a re-branding a paleoconservatism, but with some futurism spliced in.
The problem with paleoconservatism is that it makes too many unrealistic demands (ending the fed, isolationism, ending free trade) that fly in the face of an unmovable reality. Second, not all of the principles and demands of paloconservatism may be in the best interest of promoting ‘enlightenment’ and the optimization of the human and economic condition. Paloeconservatism seems like an ideology that wants society to regress or become stagnant. I would prefer an ideology that creates optimal conditions for the best and the brightest to advance society and, through the free market, rewards these individuals for their contributions. How about a more adroit, dynamic ideology that borrows from the dark enlightenment biological realism, anti-democracy, and anti-egalitarianism, with an added emphasis on pragmatism, incrementalism and realism? How about being pro-fed, pro-eugenics and pro-tech immigration, while keeping the aforementioned elements of neo reaction?
For example, a typical paleoconservative that visits Zero Hedge or Market Ticker would say our economy is doomed because of debt. But isn’t the pursuit of the truth, even if you don’t agree with it, preferable to denial? About the debt, America has reserve currency /safe haven status. That helps lessen the burden considerably. Look at companies like Apple making tens of billions of dollars a quarter; there are real fundamentals at work besides fed intervention. Demographics also pretty good, economically speaking. There are problems, but I don’t see evidence of economic collapse anytime soon. Cultural collapse is more likely, but this won’t necessarily lead to economic collapse. Maybe intervention, the anathema of paloconservatism, isn’t so bad if it costs nothing and indirectly creates trillions of dollars of economic value. TARP may have lead to moral hazard, but stocks are surging, the economy is doing pretty well, and Silicon Valley – the epicenter of innovation – is booming. In spite of the controversy, TARP benefited the best and the brightest. And that’s what I think good policy is about; it’s not about pleasing the ‘populace’, but about doing what is in the best interest for society, technology and the economy.
This ‘democracy’ or egalitarianism that Asnismov decries doesn’t really exist anymore (assuming it ever did), or at least not in America. Perhaps we’re closer to the ‘dark enlightenment’ than many realize, save for the monarchy. Although the left does espouse the virtues of egalitarianism, their power is quite limited as is evident by post-2008 socioeconomic trends of rising wealth inequality, a do-nothing congress that seems tone deaf to people’s problems but is otherwise ready to step in during crisis, the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, and the rise of biological determinism – all stultifying what little democracy America has. Although the left could be winning the culture wars, they are losing the human bio diversity and economic wars, which I think are more important. With the post-2013 backlash against SWJs, the left could be losing the culture wars – or at least the score is even. The left still has control over the universities, the legal system, and some of the media, but they cannot control the burgeoning world of social media, nor can they regulate Silicon Valley out of existence.
The issue of the underclass voting for benefits at the expense of the productive class can be ameliorated with a eugenics program and comprehensive entitlement reform, which doesn’t require a monarchy but a modification of existing republican platforms. Making the leap to eugenics, however, is a long way off and seems as fanciful as a monarchy.
I hope Silicon Valley one day does secede from the Union, in addition to its present metaphysical detachment from the rest of society. We’re only scratching the surface of our understanding of transhumanism, and the indefinite extension of individual consciousness though the intertwinement of mind and hardware is the final frontier to unlocking the limitless potential of human intelligence as we transition to a post-mortality era. We should bring all resources to making this happen, leave no stone unturned. I guess that’s my kind of ‘monarchy’ or pipedream.