Peter Turchin recently published his research, which says that the trigger for civilization wasn't a certain geographical situation, or a critical mass of food or other resources. No. Spontaneous civilization didn't happen. War happened, masses of horse riding bandits happened, and settled farmers had to pull their shit together to confront them. Hence, civilization. It is through outsider attacks that people learn to coalesce and organize.
If you need more close evidence, look at the state of neoreaction these days. For some reason the mainstream internet media has noticed that there are evil reactionaries on the internet, and suddenly progressives over the internet are finding the need to proclaim their unconditional condemnation of Emmanuel Goldstein. Everybody was getting agitated, and just when the hate wave was subsiding, the follow-up came: entryism.
So the progs are out to infiltrate the Dark Enlightenment, to make Moldbug into an antiracist antisexist saint, whose points were all about improving governance in order to benefit women and minorities. Oh well, Moldbug was never very focused on HBD or sex realism, although I do remember him linking to Roissy. And hey he's half-Jewish, so if Polansky can be forgiven for ass-raping a 13 year old, Moldbug can surely be forgiven for advocating the restoration of the Stuarts.
What remains of course are the scared rank-and-file of neoreaction closing ranks on seeing hordes of little progressive bitches flood into our blogs filibustering our comment threads with cherry-picked statistics taken from Scott Alexander's FAQ, and pointing how World War T hasn't finished yet so how can you talk about the leftist singularity? There's so much to do!
Under Peter Turchin's theory, when under attack a group naturally grows asabiya, and part of the (for lack of a better term) exogenic ethno-genesis process is defining who we are. Which is a good question we have been asking for years, without a good answer. What do we stand for? Outside sympathizers like T. Greer asked us to drop the whole movement thing, and scatter so our political radicalism doesn't taint mainstream scientists who do research on topics we agree with. Given that we live in an era of witch hunting where public heresy will lead you to poverty and ostracism, guilt by association is understandably scary.
But the thing is this gestalt that we call neoreaction doesn't stand for anything in particular. That's not what this is about. Neoreaction is not an advocacy movement, it's an analysis movement. What draw us together is our willingness to see reality for what it is, and to see how exactly did civilization decay to the point that it has.
That's why we have techno-futuristic anti-nationalist exiles together with open admirers of Hitler, staunch Christian conservatives with 6 children with poolside nihilists who pump and dump our sisters and daughters for pleasure. Yes we're all in it and we get along mightily well. Why? Because we (mostly) agree in (most parts of) reality. As GLaDOS said in a pretty good thread on LessWrong:
Watson was right about Africa. Larry Summers was right about women in certain professions. Roissy is right about the state of the sexual marketplace.
Democracy isn't that great. A ghetto/barrio/alternative name for low-class-hell-hole isn't a physical location, its people. Richer people are on average smarter, nicer, prettier than poor people. The more you strive to equalize material opportunities the more meritocracy produces a caste system based on inborn ability. Ideologies actually are as crazy as religions on average. There is no such thing as moral progress and if there is there is no reason to expect we have been experiencing it so far in recorded history, unless you count stuff like more adapted cultures displacing less adapted ones or mammals inheriting the planet from dinosaurs as moral progress. You can't be anything you want, your potential is severely limited at birth. University education creates very little added value. High class people unknowingly wage class war against low class people by promoting liberal social norms that they can handle but induce dysfunction in the lower classes (drug abuse, high divorce rates, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, more violence, ... ). Too much ethnic diversity kills liberal social democracy. Improving the social status of the average woman vis a vis with the average man makes the average man less attractive. Inbreeding/Out-breeding norms (and obviously other social norms and practices too) have over the centuries differentiated not only IQs between Eurasian populations they have also affected the frequency and type of altruism genes present in different populations (visit hbd* chick for details ^_^ ).
These are things we broadly agree on. Add to it the historical speculations of Moldbug on how progressivism evolved, which is still controversial but I think we might say the broad consensus is that the Jews aren't totally responsible, that progressivism is more or less a descendant of Puritanism (with more or less Jewish input), and that's what unites neoreaction. A common diagnostic, of sorts.
But we aren't an advocacy group who is trying to come up with some utopia to sell to the masses and gain status for ourselves. No, the left is about What should be done! Oh we should start a 21st century Oneida Community in Berkeley so I can fuck with all my school friends while we talk about how biased conservatives are! Oh, we should go to Africa and shit on the beach with blacks so I can go back home and shame my friends for not going to Africa! Or eating in the floor with Indian peasants and rationalize it as being healthier! Holier-than-thou through advocacy. So much for sola fide.
Advocacy is what leftists do. Neoreaction is not about advocacy. Of course we do think about how to cure progressivism and build a new society from the ruins of it, but as you might imagine there's little agreement. That's part of why the community is so alive: we're constantly bickering with each other about how this or that isn't good or feasible. Nick Land says smart people should just beat the fuck out and take their brains abroad where they're welcome; Michael Anissimov says we should restore the Habsburg monarchy and fund transhumanist research. Obviously both agree very little, and honestly I don't agree with either. But leftists don't understand why anyone would go in the internet and write without trying to form a conspiracy to change society and raise their own status. So suddenly neoreaction is all about Monarchism. Yes we're a Dark plot to abolish democracy and put ourselves as kings and enslave all the black lesbian neuroscientists. Why else would we have a blog, huh?
And so we are undergoing the natural asabiya-genesis process that happens when you're under attack, but we also see that we already have all the asabiya we need anyway. We aren't running anything besides our blogs, and we (mostly) believe democratic politics are part of the problem, so we aren't planning to organize to participate in the political process. Of course the movement is maturing, and some initial attempts of community building are already starting in the US. To the extent that some actual real life communities evolve out of this, they will have to decide their own rules and advocacies. Henry Dampier has some good ideas over here. Communities, if they happen, will be different, some will dislike each other, and the whole thing will splinter.
But that's cool, because this isn't about doing anything. Neoreaction is above anything an intellectual movement that seeks to know what humans are really about. I'd say we're pretty fine close to it. For the most part the conclusions aren't pretty, and the way out doesn't seem easy. Some have joined fundamentalist communities and live a life of deep religiosity. Some are working for the Cathedral and not giving a shit. Some are building ethnic communities out of scratch. Some are staunch patriarchs while others are enjoying the decline poolside.
None of this matters to neoreaction because neoreaction is not a government agency. It's a research center. We're here to see what reality is and what it teach is, in short, that humans are evolved apes, with mammal brains, with innate biases and tendencies, all of them inheritable and variable between individuals, groups and races. That everything that the powers that be teach us is false, and that they lie to each other too. Well we don't lie to each other. That's all we have in common, and all we can have in common. And it's enough. When the entryists come in, we'll know who they are, because they're the ones lying. We have the best shibboleth there can be.