There seems to be some tension building between the Neoreactionary sphere and the “New Right”, a lot of it stemming from this article over at Counter-Currents written up by Matt Parrott. In it, we see the beginning of fault lines show in two movements that are, in all fairness, incredibly similar and believe in many of the same ideals.
(Before we begin though, I would like to take a moment and commend Mr. Parrott at this point for his work with The Traditionalist Youth Network).
I admit, I am not quite sure why there needs to be conflict between the two camps. We are both critical of egalitarianism, modernism, feminism, and other hallmarks of this age. We both understand the importance of tradition and ancestry. We both understand that races are different, and we should behave accordingly. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find Reactionary and New Right blogs and websites linking to each other (I, for one, have had Counter-Currents and Alternative Right on my blogroll since this site’s inception).
Rather than delving into the mess and making a further mountain of out what seems be a molehill, I’d rather try to make sense of the various collective terms that encompass the Reaction as a whole. In doing so, perhaps we can get to the root of why the Neoreactionaries and the New Right are really going at each other. Granted, what I propose is just as arbitrary as any other paradigm that has been put forth, but I hope this will hope to at least clarify some things nonetheless.
Reaction: The overarching term for all those who take issue with the way society is currently progressing and seek to alter the current arrangement to be less modernist.
Red Pill: Reaction in the sexual realm. The Manosphere types who’ve figured out that mainstream advice on how to attract women is a bit off are a prime example of this type of Reactionary.
The Dark Enlightenment: With a name that started off as a joke but somehow managed to gain traction (the debates about whether to find a new name are unceasing), The Dark Enlightenment comprises a grab-bag of some Red Pill blogs, some Human Biodiversity, some anti-modernist political and social commentary, as well as the Neoreactionaries and a few other miscellaneous sorts. Note that not all within the Dark Enlightenment community happen to be as politically reactionary as might be expected (Jayman, one of the leading lights of HBD blogging, happens to be politically liberal).
Neoreactionaries: The pontificating intellectuals of the Dark Enlightenment. We tend to focus mostly on discussions of politics and social orders, with occasional forays into other aspects of The Dark Enlightenment. We’re against the current arrangement, and seek to critique it, but beyond that we can’t agree on too much. We are acutely aware of this, we just don’t consider it to be too much of a problem.
The New Right: The New Right has been percolating since before The Dark Enlightenment began to coalesce, so I’m loathe to stick it under that umbrella. However, as I mentioned earlier, they do have very similar positions to us Neoreactionaries in regard to certain issues. The devil is in the details though, and there are a few key points of dissent.
While Neoreaction has no real goal other than the intellectual discussion of various ideas, The New Right (for the most part) advocates for the creation of a White Nationalist state and wishes to bring attention to the Jewish Question. Most neoreactionaries feel some sympathy for ethno-nationalist ideas, though few of us openly advocate for them ourselves. Additionally, we tend not discuss the Jews, viewing other factors as being more influential in the decline of Western Civilization. It isn’t that we’re necessarily against discussing either of those things, our minds are just elsewhere. Finally, as I said, Neoreactionaries tend to be intellectuals first, men of action second. This must irk many in the New Right, who often favor action over discussion, but both approaches have their merits, which speaks more to how much more effective we could be if we work together than if we spend time squabbling over “the best approach”. Each way of doing things will be more effective in certain contexts than the other, rendering each one necessary at times.
Given the similarity of the two camps though, the recent kerfuffle comes off as more of a family squabble than a clash of two opposing and hostile ideologies. Parrott’s piece can be boiled down to “These people aren’t nearly extreme enough, but they’re alright and we may find a use for them yet”. Implicit in the argument is an understanding that we’re more closely aligned with them than most of the other people out there, so it would be off-base to criticize Mr. Parrott for failing to understand this.
The Neoreactionaries and the New Right do share much common ground. We both realize this. Any disagreements between the two probably won’t get resolved, due to the nuances of our respective positions, but will tend to be rather minor points in the grand scheme of things.
In any regard, adopting the maxim of “No enemies to the right of me” seems to be most suitable for neoreactionary purposes. I suspect in time that some sort of tentative arrangement will be reached, upon which further compromises and co-operation could be built. I see no need to sabotage the chances of that happening with inane sniping and pointless bickering. We only hurt both our camps that way.
MEMORES ACTI PRUDENTES FUTURI