Nick Land yesterday said I was "conflicted".
I guess I am. Running into writer's block perhaps.
When you pursue a line of thought long enough you tend to lose track of where you're going, and end up reaching conclusions you won't necessarily agree with if you actually started thinking about it from scratch.
I do generally like to keep things simple, so let's reboot and try to start again.
Why are we reactionaries? Because modernity sucks. In what way? Well, let's count the ways:
1. Women are unpleasant, men are unmanly
2. Foreigners everywhere
5. Aesthetic taste has collapsed
Which can be summed up as a lack of asabiyyah in general. Reactionary thought is based in the idea that modernity is corrosive to asabiyyah and thus will lead to societal collapse and general misery.
There are two lines of reactionary thought. One is the traditionalist branch, and the futurist branch.
Or perhaps there's three. There's the religious/traditionalist branch, the ethnic/nationalist branch, and the capitalist branch.
The religious want to go back to an idealized religious society, where a common faith provides asabiyyah . Go to the Orthosphere and take a look. I wouldn't say they have any real-world model to push for. But hey when you have faith you don't need empirical examples, do you?
The nationalist branch wants a mono-ethnic society, believing that a sense of kinship provi...