Brief Introduction

I started this blog as an outlet for my feelings. My workplace, my social circle, exhibit a depressing ideological conformity and ruthlessly police deviance. I had no mouth, and I needed to scream.

Until recently this blog’s traffic was in the single digits. Most referrers responsible for the recent uptick of visits come from elsewhere in the Reactosphere — the excellent Commodore Henry Dampier, Nick B Steves, Free Northerner. Because of this, I have used in-group jargon and have not defined my terms.

For the benefit of my readers who are not familiar with Neoreaction, I present a Brief Introduction to Neoreaction, often abbreviated as NRx and also known as The Dark Enlightenment.

TL;DR; what is NRx?

NRx is the uncomfortable truth.

NRx is recognizing that much of what you have been taught, while it sounds nice, is a lie. Human races and genders do not have identical abilities. Democracy is not an effective or moral system of governance. Western society does not cycle between liberalism and conservatism; we move left with alarming speed.

That bit about races and genders is scary. Are you some kind of … racist?

“Racist” is just hate speech for “white.” (As progressives will tell you, minorities can’t be racist.)

I believe in natural selection. You are probably familiar with Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”. Read its full original title, if you will.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Neo-reactionaries actually believe in evolution. It’s absurd to think that populations in different climates and surroundings would evolve identical brains, identical behaviors. It’s also absurd to think that males and females have identical selection pressures. The only type of person who could believe this is a religious lunatic.

Are neo-reactionaries religious?

I am not. Some are believers in one form of Christanity or another, and I’m happy that their faith sustains them.

A core Nrx tenet on religion: Progressivism is a demented, mutant heresy of Christianity — Universal Unitarianism, which we can abbreviate as Universalism.

But all my progressive friends are atheists! They brag about how they don’t believe in God!

Do Buddhists believe in God?

Progressives believe that all persons are equal, as a classic Christian Universalist might believe that all souls will be saved. Progressives believe in spreading democracy and “human rights” to all nations, in the same manner as a 19th-century missionary spreading the Good Word to the darkest corner of the globe. Progressive rituals such as excessively detailed recycling are akin to religious rituals.

Progressives compete with each other to see who can be holiest, who can have the most outre theology.

If progressives are a problem, does that mean I should vote against them? I voted Republican once when no one was looking, but nothing happened.

Progressives control the popular media and the civil service. Electing this or that politician is pointless; the media makes sure his politics stay within acceptable bounds, and the civil service will just ignore him.

Republicans are elected and given money due to popular discontent with the system; they have no incentive to actually do anything about it. Because progressives have coopted America’s intellectual class, conservatives must pretend to be anti-intellectual, with disastrous results.

As Moldbug said, “Voting in a democracy makes you feel powerful, much as playing the lottery makes you feel rich”.

Who is this Moldbug guy that you quote all the time?

Mencius Moldbug is a third-generation progressive (his father was a diplomat and his grandparents belonged to the CPUSA). He managed the almost impossible feat of seeing the water in which we swim. He read books from the 19th and 20th century, and thought critically about democracy and liberalism — and how we are trained to believe in them as beneficial.

Moldbug wrote long and meandering blog posts from 2007 until last year. While somewhat unfocused, his writing is entertaining and informative. You can find a helpful organization of his posts at Moldbuggery; the most popular series are An open letter to open-minded progressives and How Dawkins got pwned.

Supposing NRx is true … what good is it? To be blunt, what’s in it for me?

Even if the truth is uncomfortable, you should know what it is. The truth helps you understand the world better. There are many phenomena that I could not explain in the past; now I can do so.

It is liberating to examine how you were programmed by society. You can choose whether to cringe when someone says “sexist” or “racist.” You’re an adult; act like one.

Ask yourself which explains the world better, neoreaction or the default liberal-democratic belief system:

Default: If politician X is elected, he will enact policies I like and reverse policies I don’t.

NRx: Presidents behave the way you would expect of the leader of a large country with trade ties to the rest of the globe, who is in charge of a powerful military. The only Republican rollbacks of noxious Democratic policies in my lifetime were welfare reform (with the connivance of a Democratic president) and much of the federal government’s economic regulations (which were of course gradually replaced, then expanded).

Default: We gave blacks trillions of dollars and special privileges. They have not achieved equality with whites. The reason for this is “racism”, which apparently operates like a Higgs field — it doesn’t matter how “liberal” or “conservative” the locale or institution, blacks are arrested at higher rates and represented in professions requiring high intelligence at a lower rate.

NRx: Blacks are not equal to whites. Therefore the “inequality” between these races is expected and makes perfect sense. (This also explains why progressives are unable to come up with a black martyr who was not killed while committing a crime.)

Default: Democracy is an unqualified good. Any country that switches to a democratic government can expect peace and prosperity.

NRx: Democracy can only operate in countries whose citizens respect order, property, and the rule of law. (Even those countries cannot survive democracy indefinitely.) For most nations, democracy is a disaster, which is why Egypt’s military had to intervene to snuff out that country’s nascent government — and why America won the war against Afghanistan and Iraq, then lost the peace.

Default: The progressives of my acquaintance are tolerant, gentle people who would be accepting of my deviance from mainstream intellectual ideology.

NRx: The progressives of my acquaintance hate and fear people with normal mainstream views. They would foam at the mouth with outrage upon discovering that one of their 50,000 fellow employees was a neo-reactionary.



My employer lurches, slowly but surely, to a Left Singularity. The forces of “progress” are on the march; the latest low was when an associate of Kelly Ellis bragged to Googlers that upon hearing her story he told her “this is Rape Culture.” I said earlier that in a just world, using the term “microaggression” would lead to loss of employment. In a just world, use of the phrase “Rape Culture” would get you convicted of disturbing the peace; a reasonable punishment would be an afternoon in the stocks.

But we do not live in a just world.

Moldbug solved the crime; he moved his pawn to the Library and read books scanned by Google; then he opened the envelope: “See, it was the Progressives in academia using the media and the civil service”. But even Moldy had little to offer in the way of cures or prophylactics. His neo-cameralism relied on cryptographic weapons; as later reactionaries retorted, you don’t win by inventing magical limitations on weapons, you win by persuading soldiers to fight for you.

Also: if neocameralism is a panacea, what of cameralism? Prussia, the ideal cameralist state, should have been a bulwark against nationalism and demotism. It was not.

The Dark Enlightenment, myself included, loves nothing more than bon mots demonstrating the hypocricy, insanity, and self-induced stupidity of Universalism. (A quip I heard just the other day, from Sailer: “A culture that doesn’t believe in God but does insist that He created all persons equally is increasingly going to have to discourage snickering with the lash.”) But we might do well to consider how easily progressivism gets what it wants, how smoothly it moves from triumph to triumph.

How perfectly adapted it is.

We expect Western liberal democracy to collapse. It spends money that it does not have while mismanaging the source of its income. But after the collapse, what then? Progressive persons and the Universalist religion are not going to disappear just because the America of 2025 cannot service its debts.

It was fun to daydream about the fellow who embraced the term “Rape Culture” getting his comeuppance. I’d go to Sprouts. I’d buy a lot of tomatoes. In real life, that person faces no negative consequences. He’s free to push the Overton Window a little further left while staking a claim to holiness. “Rape culture” might even become part of the official human resources lexicon. If not, no worries. Heads he wins, tails he gets to flip the coin sometime in the future.

Meanwhile I’m free to have an anonymous blog accessed through a VPN.

I wrote a draft on this blog titled “An Open Letter to Larry Page.” It detailed the insiduous, virus-like spread of Universalism, the likely catastrophic consequences for Google, and what Page could do about it. It was filled with practical tips on how Page could stop Social Justice from dissolving Google’s vital tissues into goo, while maintaining a fig leaf of progressive respectability.

The post is still in the draft folder. Everything about my immodest proposal was fine except for … its correspondence with reality. It’s not that the company’s executives are insensate to the danger of runaway progressivism, even if “Left Singularity” is not in their lexicon. (Sergey was banging a girl who worked in his organization. He’s not stupid.)

But … progressivism is the moral and philosophical framework that surrounded Larry, Sergey, etc for their adult lives. They cannot detach themselves from that framework on the spur of the moment.

It’s likely that while Page and company make halfhearted efforts to keep Google on a path of sanity rather than witch-hunts and recriminations, they feel guilty about it. If only they could be good progressives!

So what is to be done? Say the Devolution happened and it’s 2026. Can we legislate that “Microaggression” and “Rape Culture” are verboten? That’s a non-starter. It would beseech progressives to use all their creativity and conspiratorial bent to reimplement the same ideas with different words.

Here is Jim’s solution to the problem:

The most successful recovery from a left singularity was the restoration, which created a counter theocracy, restoration Anglicanism, which lasted from 1660 to 1828. The Anglican religion theoretically endorsed the divine right of the King. Since, however, by long established precedent the King could not actually behave like an absolute monarch without losing his head, the practical effect of this was to discourage private citizens from political power, from intruding on the royal prerogative. So, the main function of the King’s supposedly absolute power was to prevent anyone from exercising it, and similarly, the main function of the official religion was to prevent competing religions from seeking and obtaining power.

Every Englishman who wanted to attend a prestigious university, or get elected to parliament, or get a prestigious government job, had to declare allegiance to the thirty nine articles, and the second book of homilies, just as today he has to write essays proving how progressive he is.

I agree that this worked well for England in the 18th century. Is it a successful template for our time and place? Restoration Anglicanism was based on Christianity (the default belief system of the time) and the national, independent church (the default Christian institution of northern Europe).

A 21st century counter theocracy would be based on … what exactly? Christianity? Our elite is hostile to Christianity. Do the masses even believe in it? Or is old-time religion one of the few remaining ways for proles to signal opposition to progressive theocracy?

Puritanism, the original super-Protestantism, operated within a framework of piety and devout belief. One could discard holiness competition, but keep holiness.

Universalism operates within a framework of nothing. The holiness competition is the religion.

Restoration Anglicanism was like genetically engineering a harmful bacteria to make it a benign organism.

But progressivism is not a bacteria. It’s a virus. There’s nothing left to genetically engineer. Change the genes, you just get a different virus.

If this sounds despondent, I do not intend it to be. Ten years ago there was no neo-reaction. There was no us. There were libertarians and disaffected liberals and conservatives convinced that this time, they would kick the football before Lucy could pull it away. We have achieved the most difficult task: being aware in the water in which we swim.

So there is hope. But: A lot of neoreactionaries say “what is left for NRX to do, I read everything by Moldbug, the commenters on popular blogs are idiots, we’re in a rut.”

There is much left to do.