Premises of Reactionary Thought
1. Right is Right and Left is Wrong.
Here it is necessary to dissolve both left and right. I strongly agree that we must be able to construct a concise value system with neither the bizarre inversion of far-leftist rebel moralities or the confused never-never-land of modern syncretic thought. I strongly agree that we must handle criticism of authority without destroying authority. Critically, I think we must be able to make authority which can reform in response to criticism.
2. Hierarchy is Basically a Good Idea.
I too believe in hierarchy, but I have my doubts as to the Reactionaries. First, I find it improbable that the hierarchy they support is the correct one. (Unlike fascists, they will have the potential to search, to explore, and to compare different hierarchies, but I fear they will not take the time and the pain of knowledge to do so.) Inclusion of plurality or exit from hierarchy can make these structures much safer to implement.
I do agree that the modern intellectual Left’s tendency to go on hierarchy hunts is somewhere between a tremendous waste of resources and fuel for a disaster of Cambodian proportions in case of an actual revolution, and I add my Imperial voice to that of the poor and the subaltern who ask those professional traitors, “Is this going to be a straight up fight, or another comparison hunt?”.
This (uncommon, but still frequently seen) Leftist rebel-morality deserves some extra thought. It seems to be a form of fuherprinzip not for rulers, but for the freedom of specific classes. Usually those classes genuinely require freedom in this mis-ordered world, and yet the strongest have reacted to stigma and suppression (A stigma and suppression that might be lifted if some Lord, honorable and pure, ordered it to be lifted) by abandoning not merely morality but restraint. I remember a situation in which a white man annoyed and frustrated a black activist by throwing at her feet the abuses of her race, and she responded by most publicly embarrassing him (who was more likely a victim of ignorance than a bigoted victimizer) and then doubling down, claiming a Nizchean independence from morality when anyone questioned her.
3. Traditional Sex Soles are Basically a Good Idea.
Here my disagreement grows. I do agree with the basic claim that for many women, the modern, feminist gender role has merely exposed them to capitalist labor pressures (and without lifting those of men). Yet I cannot accept the questionable evolutionary psychology, as it seems improbable that modern-era or recent-era gender roles map onto those present in that aboriginal past where humankind evolved. More importantly, I do think that feminism and its companion movements have done a great service in lifting a certain unnecessary tyranny from the world of sexuality and gender. Somewhere between five and fifteen percent of the population has significant sexual or gender deviancies (the most common being homosexuality, the most damaging when suppressed possibly being the much rarer transexuality). These people simply cannot be ignored, nor we continue the disastrous and harmful attempts at suppressing them and continue to consider ourselves rightful hierarchs of Europe.
To someone who is aware to a significant degree of the internal politics and more far-out ideas of the world of leftist gender theory and activism, gay marriage suddenly takes on a great reactionary, or more properly, reconstructionist significance and the anarchists already know this. I have often been confused by the failure of reactionaries to properly research their enemy; typically they simply are frustrated by the most popular present-day developments (which I sometimes support wholeheartedly.) Even among reactionaries, the ability to truly recognize without prejudice the new situation is rare. Consider the assimilation conflict. What the extremist queer anarchist fears is not that the Catholic Church will suppress gay marriage, but that the Catholic Church will survive and will frequently perform gay marriages, with all the glory that its name can bring. Xe (Often he or she, but never they, and less commonly ze) knows that when the majority of gay Europeans are properly integrated into culture; when they take their place among the great lovers of history and the people of urban neighborhoods and pastoral plains, that xe will have lost them to the “racist imperialist capitalist structure of society” or whatever overly wordy name xe has given to us. There is an internal conflict in the gay community about this matter, with the wealthy, the poor, the old, the transexual, and those who are not white and therefore not robbed of racial heritage more generally adhering to the reconstructionist side while the young and bourgeoisie-bohemian are more typical of the anarchist faction, along with those with sexualities or gendersystems so unusual that no help is forthcoming for them. As long as reactionaries fail to recognize these matters, they will make the same mistake they (truly) oppose the conservatives of, of simply resisting whatever changes to society are most recent. As long as they fail to respect these people, they will simply be another obstacle that I must overcome, whether with discourse and disputes or with kinetic energy and maneuver.
I would argue that there are some genuine feminist problems that reactionaries should take an interest in; the first is the ridiculously high rates of rape which feminists have tried so hard to suppress, with only moderate effect.
My primary complaint about feminism is that in conjunction with changing capitalist pressures, it goes around breaking societal systems without replacing them with anything, as well as that it tends to confuse the reformer for the completed reform. Fortunately the contemporary form of feminism is better at this, but it also is the most atomistically individualistic to date.
4. Libertarianism is Stupid
I find myself unable to find any significant disagreements with this. Neoreactionaries disagree with libertarianism, as it is usually advocated and practiced, for many of the same reasons leftists do. So do reconstructionists, with the added complaint that libertarianism would be ineffective at affecting social structures and norms (many libertarians take offense at the idea that social power and structures can have any importance) but would also leave adverse and merely outdated structures and norms in place rather than reconstructing them.
5. Democracy is Irredeemably Flawed and we Need to do Away With It
Here too I agree although I think that many of the benefits of ending democracy could be furthered by becoming one of the factions that controls the desires of the electorate.