NRx and Ethnonationlism

Identarianism and ethnonationalism have recently been topics of hot debate in the React-o-Sphere, prompting some rather premature announcements about the demise of Neoreaction. It was curious to me that a debate about ethnonationalism should lead to this idea that Neoreaction was being overrun or swamped. At root, I think the fear is that Neoreaction is becoming a movement. That would be bad. Here is why it won’t happen, or at least why it shouldn’t happen.

Neoreaction is not a movement

Movements are concrete, they occupy space, they have trajectories through time, they are the physical manifestation of thought. Movements can be squashed or perverted, they can take on momentum and veer off on unseen trajectories. Movements are populist, they require a lot of bodies to get to critical mass. How could Neoreaction, with its open aversion to populism, become a movement? Only by accepting populism. As long as Neoreaction remains firm in its commitment to not pander to the masses, especially a particular group, then it is guaranteed to not become a movement.

The goal of ethnonationalists is to create a state, and that requires a movement. Ethnonationalism should not be a direct goal of NRx, else NRx risks becoming a movement. Should NRx theorize on ethnonationalism, to attempt to dissect how ethnonationalism operates, what are the uses of this particular concept? Yes. Should NRx be an ethnonationalist movement? No.

For Neoreaction to become a movement is for Neoreaction to incarnate itself, at which point the clock on its lifespan begins to tick. Could the theories of Neoreaction be used by an ethnonationalist (or other) movement? Certainly, but that would be a separate group using NRx theories, not NRx morphing into that group. I would not have any ill wishes towards any ethnonationalist group that was able to use Neoreactionary thought to further their movement. Where I would have a problem is if said ethnonationalist group then attempted to hijack the Neoreactionary brand. If said ethnonationalist group wants to condemn Neoreaction and reject its theory, that is fine with me. Best of luck, fellas. Like any open source project, you are free to take and use what helps you and leave what does not help you. Like any public library, you are free to browse for new ideas and inspiration.

Neoreaction is not an ideology

Ideologies are systems of ideas that are used to inform economic, or political theory and/or policy. Eurasianism is an Ideology, it is a system of thought with a political goal and provides a theory of economic interaction and policy. Politics is a populist pursuit, and ideologies are systems of thought intended to galvanize particular groups. Again, Neoreaction is not populist, it does not have a goal of defining and leading a movement. For Neoreaction to become an ideology is to build it for use by a populist movement (such as Eurasianism), and the likely candidate would be an ethnonationalist movement. Could the theories of Neoreaction be used by a group building an ideology? Certainly. If certain ethnonationalist groups would like to use Neoreactionary theories to build an ideology for their movement, then be my guest. But Neoreaction itself should not take on the goal of becoming an ideology, because then incarnation into a movement is the next step, and the clock on the lifespan of Neoreaction begins to tick. As long as Neoreaction remains firm in its commitment to not pander to the masses, especially a particular group, then it is guaranteed to not become and ideology which could then propel a movement.

I believe that this is why some were taken aback by Nyan Sandwich’s Why NRx is Winning post, which I think of as the NRx is Sovereign post. It appears that this may be a proclamation of orthodoxy or dogmatism. If there is an NRx orthodoxy or dogma, then does that mean that it is an ideology? Although I agree with many of Nyan’s positions in his post, I would caution any readers against viewing this as dogma, it is not dogma, it is what Nyan asserts as true. We can debate whether or not his positions are indeed true, but we could not if they were dogma. Neoreaction does not have an orthodoxy or a dogma because it has no mechanism of purging, and purging is a necessary function by an institution that wishes to maintain an orthodoxy. Neoreaction does not even have an institutional structure from which one could be purged.

Neoreaction is a school

I recently stated position this in my post The University of Neoreaction. Neoreactionaries are intellectuals, busy with intellectual pursuits.This is a major difference between previous reactionaries and Neoreaction: it’s caste. This is not an intentional snootiness, it is simply the way the group is organized: it happens to be a group of intelligent men studying, debating, and analyzing the truth in the best tradition of the Western civilized world. Pragmatic, working-class men want to get things done, while intellectuals want to intellectualize. It is not better or worse than pragmatic reaction, it simply is not pragmatic reaction. Neoreaction is a self-organizing school engaged in science, and science is truth-telling.

The School of Athens by Raphael

The modern University system is a perversion and is utterly destroyed. I firmly believe this. They are petri dishes of despicable memes and culture. They are propaganda mills, where you receive status, a near worthless degree that acts merely as a license to work in a white-collar job, a healthy dose of Modern ideology, and (more than likely) a mound of non-bankruptible debt, a good start on a working alcoholic lifestyle, and a minor venereal disease. You will get very little truth from a modern education, because so much of what is true can no longer be spoken there.

The Western Identity of Neoreaction

Curt Doolittle wrote:

While Propertarianism does provide the missing logic of cooperation that Mises promised us, and that the prohibition of free riding is the single cooperative problem to be overcome, that the central proposition of Propertarianism is the western struggle to testify truthfully to one’s jury, and that trust is the result of that struggle, and economic velocity the result of that trust. And that economic velocity is the reason for both phases of the west’s rapid advancement: the classical and modern worlds that both times have dragged man out of ignorance, and in our most recent case, dragged him out of poverty.

So if I want something to be learned, it is that: we discovered truth telling.

This idea is echoed by Ricardo Duchesne in the work The Uniqueness of Western Civilization. Kevin MacDonald writes in his review of the book:

Duchesne argues that Western science is a unique accomplishment. Although the Chinese made many practical discoveries, they never developed the idea of a rational, orderly universe guided by universal laws comprehensible to humans. Nor did they ever develop a “deductive method of rigorous demonstration according to which a conclusion, a theorem, was proven by reasoning from a series of self-evident axioms” (p. 250). (The same is said to be true of Indian geometry.) Whereas there was a strong tendency within China for intellectuals to uphold ancient wisdom (emanating from Confucius), the Greeks “challenged existing explanations by trying to deliver new and better explanations and by seeking incontrovertible truths [i.e., objectively true—true for all observers] based on the strictest modes of demonstration” (p. 251). Thus while the Chinese essentially gravitated to collectivist reaffirmation of social wisdom, the Western tradition was one of individuals questioning received wisdom and the weight of tradition.

By merely engaging in science (which is the act of telling the truth), Neoreaction displays its Western identity. We can do nothing else. This drive for truth-telling is a central part of the power of the West: by telling the truth we create trust and that trust dramatically increases economic velocity and that economic velocity powers our societies. Telling the truth also has the advantage of allowing is to model the world accurately, in order to harness its resources more effectively.

Neoreaction is Western, it is European, therefore it is White. I believe that the theory of gene-culture co-evolution is correct. The genetics of a population and the culture of a population work to modify each other in continuous feedback loops. The culture of debate and scientific inquiry of Neoreaction are direct manifestations of its Western identity. I assert that Neoreaction has a White identity, but it does not follow that Neoreaction is therefore ethnonationalist. We can discuss the semantics of the term ‘Identitarianism’, but let’s look at Metapedia for a moment (emphasis mine):

Identitarianism rests on the assumption that ethnic-cultural factors have a central role in human welfare and the functioning of society. Man is viewed as a combination of inherited and environmentally acquired traits, and the need of ethnic Europeans to defend and develop themselves as distinct peoples is emphasized. Accordingly, identitarians oppose large-scale extra-European immigration to Europe, regardless of its possible economic utility. This standpoint has caused it to be viewed as racist. At the same time, it has been heavily criticized by certain nationalist groups, since it has (among other things) clearly distanced itself from national socialism.

Identitarians claim to view the nation state through a pragmatic lense, and points out that it is only one of several possible historical forms of organisation for ethnic groups and peoples. Many identitarian theoreticians, such as Guillaume Faye, have championed a federalist imperial ideal, where hundreds of local and regional communities, with a high degree of autonomy, would be organised into a “Eurasian” confederation, the latter working to defend the peoples and interests of Europe as a totality on a global scale. This is a natural consequence of the identitarian interest both in Europe and Europeans as a totality, and in local, regional and traditional expressions of culture, which are viewed as positive sources of community and cultural development.

Regarding economy, the sole general identitarian viewpoint is that the economy always must be subjected to other, more vital, interests. Identitarians contend that the well-being of the people always must trump economic growth and similar considerations, and criticises globalisation as ecologically and socially destructive. No comprehensive identitarian theory of economics exists as of yet, and theories ranging from corporatism and distributism, over libertarianism, to socialism, are frequently discussed in identitarian circles. This is fully in line with the identitarian ambition to be non-dogmatic and flexible, but could also be understood as a serious flaw.

I see much of Neoreaction in this. A comparison and contrast of Neoreaction and European Identarianism is in order. Notice in this that Guillaume Faye theorizes around a Eurasian union, but I do not believe he could be characterized as an Eurasianist activist as is Aleksander Dugin. Theoretician vs Activist. In this same way, I believe that Neoreactionaries are theoreticians, not activists.

Notice that the Identitarians are not well liked by the National Socialists, nor is Neoreaction. NatSoc is populist, NRx is not. The Identitarians see the nation state as only one of many possible organizational forms. This is one of the problems with ethnonationalism, that it contains embedded within it the idea of a nation state. What if it is time for the giant nation state to go the way of the Roman empire?

In this section I have attempted to show that Neoreaction is uniquely Western, European, White, but that our Western identity in no way means that we must be White Nationalists, or National Socialists, or any other brand of ethnonationalism. Neoreaction does not need to condone any ethnonationalist positions in order to prove its European identity. Europeans do not necessarily need a nation state, that is not a precondition, and NRx should remain flexible around that analysis. Like the Identitarians we should attempt to remain non-dogmatic and flexible.

I have asserted now that Neoreaction has no need of ethnonationalism. This presents a problem: Ethnonationalism is one of the spokes on Spandrell’s trike. The spoke is still there, but I believe that it is mislabeled. It should not be labeled ‘ethnonationalism’, but something else. Perhaps ‘Western Identity’. Ethnonationalism is rather vague also, because it evades the actual ethnicity of the project, which is undoubtedly Western or European. Fix the trike.

Neoreaction should remain independent

The moment that NRx stops being a vehicle for truth-telling, then it will have become a tool. It will no longer be an engine of science, it will no longer have as its goal the production of truth, but will become a marketing department, a public relations department. I warn Neoreaction not to become an ideology or a movement, not because I want Neoreaction to live for itself, but because I think it is valuable as a forum for debate and analysis of what is true. Its value is tied to its commitment to telling the truth. Because Neoreaction is committed to theory, analysis and debate does not mean that it is not useful to for the creation of ideologies or movements, it is, but the moment it becomes an ideology or movement is the moment it is controlled by outside forces.

When Neoreaction stop telling the truth, that is the sign that it has been co-opted. Then a dogma will form, an orthodoxy will be held out as inviolable. As long as NRx is openly discussing the merits of ethnonationalism, then it is not controlled by ethnonationalists.

“To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” — Kevin Alfred Strom


33 thoughts on “NRx and Ethnonationlism

  1. Well, I think you’re going to have a heart-to-heart with Bryce over the proposition that neoreaction is not an ideology. I’m rather allergic to the word myself, as I am allergic to comprehensive explanatory narratives. I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by “ideology”. If neoreaction is at all an ideology, I think it safe to say that it is a far simpler and more well-grounded narrative than enlightenment rationalism.

    Indeed, Nyan’s “Sovereignty” post lays down what appears to be An Orthodoxy. I prefer to think of these (8 and there are probably others) as conclusions that are held on the basis of neoreactionary “social science”. In principle, they, like all scientific models, are tentative. They represent not eternal truths (dogmas), but best guesses thus far based on the best information thus far. If you want to question these and remain in the school, do even better research. Sniping around the edges is a great way to get ignored. Or purged.

    So neoreaction does have an essence, a way of doing social studies uncluttered by false enlightenment narratives. And since it has an essence, it also has boundaries, even as an intellectual school (which I think is the best model thus far for the phenomenon). These boundaries remain intentionally occulted but they clearly exist. It is therefore possible to be purged, although such a purging would likely have an occult flavor as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If Bryce wants to build an ideology, that’s OK with me. That’s what Moldbug said he was doing, right?

      “The other day I was tinkering around in my garage and I decided to build a new ideology.”

      I just think that an ideology is a breath away from becoming a movement. An ideology has goals. I’m just making the argument that maybe it’s better that we think of this as a ‘space’.

      If people want to walk away from NRx and build an ideology or a movement, then great. If people from other ideologies and other movements want to come and give us their perspective, then great. Exchanging ideas is great as long as we are telling the truth, and that is the price of admission – tell the truth.


  2. We must remember that Spandrell did not seek to define neoreaction so much as simply point out who the current crop of reactionaries were… potential allies in overthrowing the progressive machine. (After which they would, of course, immediately turn on each other for dessert.) It has of course come to represent something far more fundamental to neoreaction and also remains a constant source of confusion. A source of confusion because people see it as representing branches of partisan pull. But such pull, while always a temptation, is always away from the core of neoreaction (which subsists in the embrace of all three) and into the respective old-school partisan reactionary wankery. [I am not, of course, accusing you Butch of making this mistake. You are far too perspicacious for that.]

    So then: ethnonationalism. Well, obviously there are many ethno- and racial-nationalists out there. A few might be attracted to neoreaction because it accepts their feelings and motivations as natural and normal. It is perfectly good and right to prefer one’s own folk; in fact, you might incur a bit of suspicion if you didn’t. So be normal and embrace it. But neoreaction rejects nationalist wankery and insanity. Therefore most nationalists will find it insufficiently nationalistic. That’s OK. Neoreaction wishes you well in your activist endeavors.

    Of course neoreaction stands against an understanding of nationalism that descends into insane ramblings and wankery about kicking out group X being Job Number One™. This is not an attitude of a strong and stable society, but the moaning of disaffected weaklings. Neoreaction understands why people feel this way, but to truly fix the problems, we must rise above our petty insecurities, and solve the structural problems that inhere to left-liberal government, irrespective of badly behaved minorities.

    So I do not think the “Ethnonationalist” leg of the trichotomy trilemma needs so much to be renamed as contended for in a sane, natural, and reasonable way that is attractive to counter-prog signaling Brahmins.


  3. First issue, I would dump all reference to science. Science is not applicable to social formations and structures. The scientific method cannot be applied. Easy mistake to make, but this is why I am such a big champion of spontaneous order and Hayek.

    Second big issue- Nationalism is a left wing derived phenomenon. This is not really disputable, it is pretty clear that it is. The usage of ethnicity (and national ethnicity in particular) as a form of identity is a fairly modern innovation. Taking Italy and Germany as key examples, German and Italian nationalism was a development of the 19th century. So this puts a spanner in the claims that organising nations on national ethnic lines is natural. It really isn’t.

    Nationalism arose at the time in which the modern state was created, all aspects of it are a result of the developments of the French revolution and Napolean’s levying of the French nation under “liberty, fraternity and egalitare”, which by doing increased the manpower and influence of what De Jouvenal in On Power terms the power. The subsequent mimicking of this development by other powers was a direct result of needing to access their manpower in the same way as France, as a means to counter French military success.

    Nationalism is a leftism which was adopted and used as a means to access greater levels of control and power. It is also a phenomenon which is only applicable in the modern nation state, this being a state with a bureaucracy, mass media etc (aka a cathedral) which should raise the question – why is it something that NRx should be interested in going forward?

    Leaving this train thought behind, the next issue with ethno-nationalism, identitarians and other ilk is the question of societal structure, or rather how it is perceived that society functions. Identarianism and ethno-nationalism both presuppose that ethnic ties are for some reason justifiable as a point of connection within a society, this is despite as I have noted, ethnically tied nations being a very recent, very synthetic event. Coming to NRx after reading Moldbug, who is quite clearly trying to develop an ideology based on libertarian/ classical liberal roots, this creates a bit of an issue. You have two very, very different approaches to societal organisation in play here. One based on libertarian/ classical liberalism which perceives people as individuals, and society as a agglomeration of people, and then you have the ethno gang which clearly see society as a organic whole via ethnicity. Referring back to De Jouvenal (who everyone really should read) this organic interpretation (of society) is very new and to me seems very left wing. It is/ was part of the shift from sovereignty being based on a person (king) to be based on the will of the people as a whole (again – part of the formation of the modern nation state.) So in effect, you have two very different understandings of society residing within NRx – the one which is resident via the libertarian angles and Moldbug (Hobbesian individual which is actually the understanding of society going back to Roman times at least according to De Jouvenal), then the additional one added with NRx’s formation and the decision that ethnic-nationalism was acceptable. Does anyone else see the problem here?

    To cap this all off, it is clear regarding ethno-nationalism that the HBD guys are telling us that ethno-centrism is actually not a natural phenomena, has not been selected for, and that going by inclusive fitness, we only really have a genetic interest in our family (see the comments here – The second cousin being the real cut of point, though this varies dependent on in breeding/ out breeding. Cochran here ( seems convinced patriotism (which is a good substitution for ethno-nationalism surely?) is a result of another genetic ingrained connection being misdirected. This should be raising alarm bells and causing some serious thinking regarding the status of ethno-nationalism within NRx – but I doubt it will.

    One additional thought I want to add which is connected to the above, but which I can’t really add anywhere other than as an addendum without breaking the flow, is that libertarians operate on the individual understanding of society, yet do not take into account one simple thing – all the older classical liberals, and pre-modern thinkers influencing this area would have understood societal individuals as specifically men surely – not women and children – but men.


    • Huge comment. 🙂 I’ll have to take it in parts.

      1. “Science is not applicable to social formations and structures.”

      This is a huge error. What is HBD but the study of social formations and structures from the viewpoint of the science of biology and genetics? We must base our arguments in empiricism, otherwise there is no way to determine if we are engaged in Platonic rationalism. I flesh out this argument here:

      2. “Nationalism is a left wing derived phenomenon. This is not really disputable, it is pretty clear that it is.”

      Mark Yuray just made a similar argument last week, in his Leftists of the Right piece:

      I thought Max’s comment was good: when talking about nationalism vs individualism, we are not talking Left vs Right, but Communitarian vs Individualist. It is a different axis.

      Your argument about ‘Nationalism as a Leftism’ is all in the context of the modern Nation-State. In a modern democratic nation-state, yes nationalism is leftist because it has a populist government. In a monarchic nation-state, then a nationalist man fighting for king and country is not a leftist, but a rightist. The nature of the nationalism changes with the nature of the state government. An aristocratic government waging war will play on nationalist sentiments also. National fervor is part of living in a Western nation, it will be harnessed by whoever is in power.

      3. Ethinic Ties: “as I have noted, ethnically tied nations being a very recent, very synthetic event.”

      This assertion goes against reality. I think you are still only thinking about modernity. In the pre-modern West, history is the history of ‘ethnically tied nations’ (but not nation-states): Huns, Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc.

      You get caught up in the false idea that ‘Left is to Right, as Communitarianism is to Individualism’. No. You can have a Rightist Communitarianism, meaning a group of people who view themselves as a unit, but are organized in a hierarchical manner. Just because a group views themselves as a group, doesn’t mean that they are egalitarians (like commies). You should not confuse communitarianism with Leftism. I see the NRx project as a Rightists Communitarian project.


      • Starting with 1 –
        You can use genetics and the science of biology to inform your attempts at coming to an understanding of societal structures, but the scientific method relates to the usage of controlled experiments. The level of complexity of society means there is no way to conduct controlled experiments (with control groups). The best that seems possible so far, and one which tech-comm people have discussed, is to identify structures which are emergent and will create a spontaneous order which is beneficial, but even this is fraught with complication – beneficial to whom? and how? and how can you ensure that this will be the case. This is why it seems obvious to me that NRxs real direction lies in trying to act as a conduit for the Scots enlightenment and Hayek (as a lot of Moldbugs stuff comes accross as). Curt’s idea of expelling self evident axioms is correct, but this merely leaves you in a position in which you can say what is clearly bullshit, but does not leave you with a clear answer of how to move forward, and does not make it scientific.

        Regardless of how you paint it, nationalism is the result of a hacking of genetic interest. Cochran assumes as much. As such, it is synthetic, and abstract every bit as bizarre as anti-racist universalism when you dig deep enough. For me it is clearly the result of mass media, even the likes of Kierkegaard noted as much back in 1846. ( What is also interesting, and would be a really good discussion point if nationalism could be kicked of its pedestal, is the idea of continual empire kicking the crap out of any genetic mix that encourages outbreeding/ altruism as Cochran speculates. Even we could look at it dispassionately, we could maybe try to analyse empire rise and collapse in line with number of wars/ casualties/ birth rate boosts to sections of society/ genetic pools that were anti-empire/ non patriotic by virtue of not getting killed. But again, I don’t think a lot of the ethno-nationalist area are able or willing to go into these areas as it requires dropping some sacred cows.

        Also, the idea of monarchism and nationalism together is incoherent. It requires a great deal of fudging, to the point that the monarch is pretty much irrelevant and becomes a rubber stamp for the cathedral that is the modern state.

        3- ethnically tied nations like “Huns, Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, etc”
        This is interesting, and it would be good to look at this further, as I think this add to my point I raised regarding libertarians building on thought which assume very different things (socially/ politically active persons being only men.) as I don’t think any of those people can be described as nationalist, or acting in the interest of the nation. My reading of classical literature ( and granted it is all from Roman or Greek perspectives) is that people like the Gauls were multiple tribes that did not act in concert at all. Any time a military action was needed, they organised around specific man who had retainers they could call on to assist. This would have been the case with the Germanic tribes during the classical period, and I am sure was similar for the Huns. Loot was a big issue as as well.

        Final point –

        I am not trying to make a dichotomy between individual and communitarian. That is missing what I am trying to say, which granted is still a bit opaque. What I am trying to say is that we have no genetic interest past the second cousin, and nationalism/ claims that any structure past this is natural is at best suspect (of course you can counter with “what is natural?”). Add in the fact that the periods when races have been fairly monolithic have been when no mind was really paid to race, but merely the family, then you have to question what on earth is the concentration on race about? it is an argument over a synthetic point of organisation which has no direct relevance to political ideology which allows for anti-racist to just as justifiably counter that “humanity” is the correct organizing principal which they then push through the cathedral and we then have to put up with psychos adopting entire tribes of random Africans and asserting they are identical to someone born in fucking Norway.


      • Breaking replies into separate threads now.

        1. Social Science
        I agree that we cannot perform controlled experiments on society to test hypotheses using the scientific method. But we can be scientific about it, as I discuss below.

        Read my piece on Operational Property, to get some background here.

        The libertarians have produced a ton of pseudoscience, unfortunately. That’s what happens when you don’t use existence proofs to prove that your logic is externally correspondent. The Non-Aggression Principle is a perfect example of Libertarian pseudoscience. It is stated as a ‘Principle’ just like the Archimedes Principle or Gauss’ Principle of Least Constraint. The problem is that the NAP is a pseudoscientific ‘principle’ because it is not empirical or externally correspondent. It just uses the name ‘principle’ to sound scientific. It’s a marketing gimmick, a propaganda trick.

        This idea that in order to be scientific about sociology, that we must be able to perform experiments (using the scientific method) on that entire society using the scientific method is false. That is like saying that because we can’t perform experiments (using the scientific method) on Astrology that we have to throw out the entire idea of using science when we talk about Astrology. Then how do you know the subject isn’t bullshit? Astrology is non-falsifiable. That’s a huge clue that it is bullshit, and declaring any unfalsifiable theory as ‘true’ is the very definition of pseudoscience. See the Principle of Falsifiability.

        Looking at Operational Property, the classical liberals came up with ‘self-evident axioms’ about property and the built giant rational explanations of society based on that. But there is also an operational definition of property. We can observe the creation of property through defense, this is logical, and it is externally correspondent and therefore empirical. Starting with the empirical, observable, operational definition of property we can recognize a wider expanse property and come to more accurate conclusions about how society operates.

        For a concrete example, see my piece on White Privilege as a Normative Commons.

        Libertarian pseudoscience has no possible explanation for why it is that members of a group defend their norms, and that is because they built their entire body of work on a rational definition of property, rather than an empirical, operational one.

        Yes, this allows us to ‘dispel bullshit’. It allows us to warranty that what we are saying is truthful. I would argue that this is precisely what makes it scientific, as long as you understand that science is the formalization of truth-telling. Science is the bag of tricks that we use to make sure that we are telling the truth, and it is the truth that is produced.

        Obviously dispelling bullshit is immensely valuable. You don’t believe in Astrology do you? Aren’t you better off knowing that that particular bullshit has been dispelled? Now we have to go about the project of dispelling all the bullshit that is taught in modern universities as ‘social science’, and future generations will enjoy the benefits of that scientific advancement.


    • Science is not applicable to social formations and structures. The scientific method cannot be applied.

      This is just crazy talk, Chris B. Neoreaction is nothing if not a reclaimation of the social sciences. Such an effort is of course in its infancy.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “The goal of ethnonationalists is to create a state, and that requires a movement.”

    If you wish to define it thusly. Though, a broader definition was provided by Moldbug:

    “[The] nationalist is someone who believes that [members] should act collectively to further their collective interests”;

    This Moldbuggian usage renders ethno-nationalist synonymous with “ethnic Identitarian” — and distinct from ethno-statist. Employed this way, the term is consistent with the distinction, common in more sophisticated political discourse, between nation and nation-state. It also corresponds with “ethnonat” as used in much NRx debate. But let’s not let semantic consistency get in the way of good rhetoric.

    Of course, for practical reasons ethnonats might wish to realize a state, just as for aesthetic ones techcoms might which to realize AI. but that’s another matter.


    • Yes, these are semantics. The Moldbuggian definition to me could be a definition of Communitarianism. I believe that while Ethnonationalist are comminitarians, they are communitarians + something. Just like Identitarians are a form of communitarians + something. The something is how the communitarian feels the goal should be realized.

      The Identitarians are more flexible on the structures. Ethnonationalists work toward nation-states. We can theorize about what Ethnats are semantically without ever getting an understanding of what they actually are in the real world. We have this same problem with ‘feminism’, where the definition of ‘fighting for equality’ is very different from the phenotype of ‘female supremacist’. I’m not trying to draw a line to Ethnats by using that example, I use feminism as an example of how definitions and real world expressions of movements are often widely variant.

      So, Moldbug gives us a wide communitarian definition of nationalism. When we look at nationalist movements in the real world they clearly see that creating and controlling a nation state is the expression of their ‘collective interests’. Does the definition and the real world expression vary? Yes. Is that normal? Yes.

      I can’t really think of a nationalist movement that is not aimed at controlling the machinery of a state in some way. Can you?


      • “I can’t really think of a nationalist movement that is not aimed at controlling the machinery of a state in some way. Can you?”

        uh, national-anarchism
        check the “see also” under metapedia’s page on nationalism

        the problem with your usage is that it lends to confusion as Land’s techcom NRx often criticizes nationalism on account of being communitarian. it obscures an area of debate: to what extent is ethnonationalism qua ethnocommunitarianism problematic with respect to NRx?

        but ya, so long as you are clear and note the semantic disagreement, you could use:

        ethnocommunitarianism = Moldbuggain ethnonationalism
        ethnonationalism = ethnostatism


      • The TechComms are basically Libertarian in their view: individualist, so they might tend to think more Rothbardian/Anarchist. I make the claim that NRx is Rightist Communitarianism. That is what I see mostly. Maybe I’m wrong in that analysis. I tend to align more with the Identitarian view, just to not get locked into thinking in terms of states.

        National-Anarchism: Hehe. Well, I don’t think that theoretical anarchism is possible in the real world: power abhors a vacuum, sovereignty is conserved. There have been Anarchist projects, like the syndicalists of Catalonia. The funny thing about them is that they had these organizations that made rules and kept order, they just didn’t call them governments, but that is exactly what it was. So yeah, in theory, they might say they are not trying to control a state, but if they ever gained any power, that’s exactly what they’d do. You know, just until the Utopia arrives. Just like the I said before, what a group claims they do and what they actually do are two very different things.


      • I make the point above, because it aids in thinking through your argument: When one makes the distinction between ethnocommunitarianism and ethnostatism, one can see the place which ethnonationalism, understood as the former, has; and one sees that putting the fix in for this faction of the trike would ruin NRx as a philosophical endeavor. NRx is indeed a school in the sense of a shared outlook and that point of view is decidedly anti-leftist, where leftism means equalist. techcap, tradpat, ethnat participate in NRx insofar as they are unequalist. It is more than a school of thought, though, it is a philosophy in the sense of a dialectical system of ideas; the factions complement each other and keep them from degenerating into leftism, which in the economic form is communism and consumerism, in the political form is populism and transnationalism, and in the metaphysical form is atomism and universalism. ethnat is particularist, thus principally opposed to transnationalism (a degenerate form of techcap manifest as glob cap); insofar as it is politically separatist, this is consistent with Exit. it is often aligned with philosophical pluralism, since different ethnic groups tend to relate to the world differently, and this. like the techcap’s individualism, acts as a corrective to the tradpat’s predilection for universalism at least in the aggressive form (e.g.,global Islam). Since, along with tradpat, it is grounded in traditional value, it acts as a counterbalance to the techcap’s propensity for degenerating into consumerism (which is a kind of democracy of the instinct, where base desires of the appetites are given equal weight with longings of the spirit); being grounded in gemeinschaft it also acts as a counter to techcap’s atomotism and excessive gesellschaft. tradpat, and to some extent techcap (i.e., in the AI mania), reaches for a transcendent, which provides counterweight to ethnat’s tendency to degenerate into populism; and techcap counter balances the ethnat tendency to socialism. One might go on. The point is that these factions prevent each other from degenerating into one form or another of “progressivism”. NRx, then, is more of a worldview than a school of thought. but I guess you could try it with a dich.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Science is a very limited tool. When you go past simple structures and rules you enter metaphysics eventually. Take a lot of advanced physics, such as string theory – it is metaphysics. Even take Einstein’s theory of relativity – it was metaphysics until it became possible to scientifically prove it. Also, if you are to declare science as the formalization of truth telling, then that is taking the concept on a very different tangent.


    • “Science is a very limited tool”. Yeah, well it’s the only one we have. I know it’s not as fun as metaphysics where you get to just pull shit out of your ass all day. What next, you’re going to expound on the powers of reading tea leaves or divining rods? I’m here to talk about science.

      Yeah. Science = truth telling, otherwise you are not accumulating knowledge about the universe, you are accumulating a bunch of horseshit, known as lies, or ‘not truth’. Like reading tea leaves. Pretty obvious, huh?

      You think that ‘science as truth telling’ is some radical departure from what ‘science’ is? LOLZ!!

      I think you need to go back to square one and start again.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Here is an interesting discussion on the limits of science. My favorite part is

        “But when confronted with a historical counterexample (involving Einstein, the scientist you most like to contrast with today’s “fairytale” physicists) you try to wriggle out of it. Quantum entanglement is a real effect not metaphysics, but it took 50 years before the theoretical idea came to fruition. Yet you demand stricter deadlines for a theory of everything. Other examples of theoretical ideas with long gestation periods are not hard to find: atoms (400BC), black holes (1784), gravitational waves (1916). The W and Z bosons of the standard model of particle physics are described by the 1954 gauge theory of Yang and Mills, but they didn’t know this at the time.

        Falsifiable predictions concerning W and Z had to wait until 1969 and their experimental discovery until 1983.”

        Science is not magic. It’s merely the verification via scientific experimentation and observation. It exhausts itself quickly so that a need for metaphysics arises, which becomes science when someone can devise a way to test it – or would you demand metaphysical speculation and discussion which may provide testable hypothesis cease?


      • You are off on some tangent about the limits of science with regard to metaphysics, this is simply muddying the waters, or deliberate obscurantism. We went down this road because of your claim that social sciences are untestable and that therefore we had reached the ‘limits of science’. I then made a clear case why Praxeology is a pseudoscience because it is nothing more than an unfalisifiable rationalist system. Now you’re talking about metaphysics as if that has some relationship, which it does not.

        I’ll give you another example: Neurosexism, a term coined by Cordelia Fine where she accuses the neurosciences of sexism for finding sex differences in the brain. Her argument is complete overloading, reframing, obscurantist non-sense just like Franz Boas. There was just an article about ‘Queering Agriculture’, bringing nonsense gender theory into the science.

        We have not met a limit of science in either of those cases. We have met a direct attack on science and truth via obscurantist and false moralist arguments. The only way to counteract this is to actually find the real science necessary, such as a system built on the operational definition of property. The truth is that we have pseudoscience and bullshit, not a limit of science there. We are well within the limits of science, it is just being abused. So while the limits of science with regards to metaphysics may be an interesting topic, it has no bearing on this post about NRx and Ethnonationalism.


  6. Here are a couple thoughts:

    1.) I’m not sure why you think that ethno-nationalism is more of a “movement” than techno-commercialism. Both attitudes argue for real sociopolitical measures to be enacted with distinct infrastructural implications. In your post, you say that the yearning to create a state makes it a movement, and you say nothing of the other goal to facilitate easy exit through extreme cosmopolitan globalism. One could actually argue the ethno-nats are less of a movement than the tech-comms, because the former are quite divided on A) what their state would look like, B) what a “state” or “nation” actually is, and C) what constitutes membership within a given ethnicity. They’re much more interested in defining terms and disputing them, although they tend to have communication issues among themselves, so these debates are always slow going. The tech-comms have a distinct platform for which they argue: neo-cameralism. The beauty of neo-cameralism is that it’s so poorly explained and theorized that it can be anything you want to be. I have no idea how it would facilitate an optimally right-wing environment (which is supposedly what they want), or what “the environment” would even be, or if any of the corporation-states would want to be right-wing in the slightest, or if “exit” would apply cross-nationally (corporationally?) without interference, or upon which authority right-wing structures and exit would be able to maintain themselves, but then again, I have no idea that its main proponents know the answer to these questions either. Regardless, they root for it. So it’s clearly some sort of movement in its incipient stages.

    2.) Has anyone entertained this alternative proposition: that Neoreaction is a mess? What I mean is, I think it’s kind of a mess. You could call it a “discourse,” but I think “mess” is the better word. I’ve seen countless attempts to define what neoreaction really is, and almost all of them are rooted in what the writer wishes it were rather than what it actually is. The attempts to define NRx are actually getting increasingly baseless and goofy, and they don’t even hold the pretense of being falsifiable. I’m quite comfortable, as a passive outsider, with NRx being a total mess. If it ever materializes into something concrete, then I think there won’t be much disputing it. No one will go, “OK guys, here’s some zany hare-brained theory on what my online social club is using only commonly-used terms that I’ve specially redefined to be optimally obscure so that only we know what we REALLY are unlike the foolish unwashed masses,” because this sort of contrived linguistic prescriptivism is transparent to anyone who doesn’t have the same sort of investment in the issue. NRx is a mess. I like messes. It’s cool.


  7. Chris B. makes many valid points about Nationalism, i.e., arriving late, largely artificial, and ever in service to the expanding Nation State. But that is only one species of nationalism: Big-N Nationalism, which may be seen largely as cooptation by leftist and statist movements of natural human preferences for similarity. Small-n nationalism is primarly descriptive and far more modest. It begins with an observation that all humans have a consistent, pretty much measurable preference for people phenotypically near themselves: a small-n nation, i.e., a people. It leads to conclusions like: cooperation and civic-mindedness are generally stronger in homogenous societies. Therefore ethnic diversity is not something you go out of your way to look for, and you might even want to keep it to a minimum.

    This is the sort of ethno-nationalism which stands as a fundamental building block of the neoreactionary trialectic. It is not only countenanced by neoreaction but positively encouraged.

    Neoreaction desires and advances non-retarded versions of nationalism that will out-compete the retarded versions.


    • “You know, just until the Utopia arrives. Just like the I said before, what a group claims they do and what they actually do are two very different things.”

      Your original argument worked by eliding the distinction between ethnonationalism and ethnostatism. It fails when reformulated. When reformulated, it works just as well against techcap and tradpat. For example, trying to establish a monarchy is a political project — ergo tradpat is not NRx. But you have a point. Perhaps NRx’s “ethnonationalism” should simply be relabeled e.g. “ethnocentrism” to cut down on the confusion.

      Liked by 1 person

      • As you say, I think ‘ethnocentrism’ seems slightly better than ‘ethnonationalism’ because the focus is on the ethnic ties, no matter how those ties are expressed (in a state or not). My only quibble with ‘ethnocentrism’ is that is does not explicitly label the ethnicity in question: Europeans. That what why I suggested ‘White Identity’. How about ‘Eurocentrism’?

        NBS says the Trike is fine as is, because the three legs are the three general groups that first came together as what we now think of as NRx. As though is is simply an historical marker. I don’t see the Trike as just keepsake of the origins of NRx. As you said in your quote, the impulses of the three groups help to form a balance moving forward. I think it is the definition of a sort of ecosystem in balance. I think Jim showed that when he modified the Trike into the infinite-loop-Celtic-knot formation. I think Nick Land also expressed that he saw the three forming a working ecosystem when he wrote his piece on the Trichotomocracy. Of course, he seems to envision some large state, which did indeed have Ethno-nationalists in it. I tend to think of much smaller, autonomous states, SovCorps and the like.

        The Trichotomocracy:

        Again, I don’t have a problem with ‘Ethnonationlists’ solely because of the idea of a state, but because in the name, in the very place where we mean to stick a flag in the ground and stand on our identity, we have this weak deracinated ‘Ethno’ term. That means something to me. We are sending a message when we write ‘Ethnonationlist’. We are saying that we are scared of going to far here. We are going to plant our flag in ‘ethnic’ identity? Is that like ‘ethnic studies’? Aww, hell no. I’m planting my flag in White identity. NRx is White, it is European, it is Western. Just. Say. It.

        I get it: ‘White nationalist’ is overloaded, it feels like the wrong thing when people read it. Fine. ‘Eurocentrism’ seems acceptable to me. People who believe in what the West created. People who know that it was Europeans that brought the light of Science to the world. Eurocentrists. Euronationalists. Something White. Something Western. Just. Say. It.


      • I am warming up to the idea that “ethno-nationalist” just doesn’t mean to even educated ears what NRx would like it to mean. “Ethno-centrist” is better. But given NRx predilection for neologisms or resurrecting paleologisms the sky would seem to be the limit here. Ethno-preferentialist? ethno-constructivist? ethnonomist? phylo-constructivist? ethno-normativist?

        Liked by 1 person

  8. @ Butch Leghorn

    “That what why I suggested ‘White Identity’. How about ‘Eurocentrism’?”

    NRx is about as European as is Nietzscheism. It’s a perspective that a good European would entertain and which is deeply rooted in Western thought but not one which is about being White. Generally, as I see it, NRx is the counter-position (reverse, inverse) of progressivism. As the latter is universalistic in telos (thus, evangelistic), the former must be meta (i.e., dealing with foundational “reactionary” principles) in essence. As White is an instance of the idea of ethnos (as particularist, bioculturally rooted collective identity), it’s too specific to be a foundation. NRx, understood this way, can no more be principally European than it can be traditionalist Catholic or even Moldbuggian. Perhaps, we simply envision NRx differently. Unlike Land, for example, I don’t see it as a specific intellectual lineage, which happens, owing to its unique pedigree (descending on different sides from anti-calvinistic and eurocentric meditations) to be unprogressive. I am reading into it a meta-system defined genetically in relation to progressivism, which I see as the expression of a greedy, wanton paleolithic impulse that needs to be kept in check. I agree, of course — for the reasons which you have offered — that NRx should not be -statist. That confuses ideology with philosophy. That it should be European would seem to overspecify. But why should it be ethno-whatever? Why is this a NRx first principle? That would be the exclusive part, which is what progressivism manifest as cultural marxism — aligned with the degenerate form of techcap (atomistic consumerism realized as glob cap) — sees as anathema. The communitarian aspect identifies thick community which stands athwart the liberal-libertarian hyper individualistic ideal; the ethnos part qualifies this as not just particularistic but particularistic in a very unpropositional way, thus doubly standing in contrast to the hyper inclusive communist vision. Intentional or not, I do think that NRx, with its trikes managed to cut out basic principles — or, more accurately, archetypes — which frustrate the equalist impulse. Or, perhaps more correctly, liberal/progressivism did and NRx formed as a refugee camp, filled with those who fled from intellectual spaces which with good reason the other side bombarded the fiercest.

    “Just. Say. It.”

    Been there. Done that. Now looking for an expansive, stable thought-frame which gives place to my inclinations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s