What are your thoughts on neoreaction?

Basically they want society to Regress to a Pre-Enlightenment / Liberalism society cept with Cyberpunk characteristics

Also Acceleration-ism memes LMAO

NRx are borderline autistic nerds that were bullied in high school so they want to prove that they're not sissies by promoting extreme meritocracy.

are they wrong tho? one could argue we enjoy higher quality of life despite progressivism/liberalism/capitalism, not because of it
one could argue feudalism would be much better now that we have the technology than modernity
one could argue improvement in our quality of life is because of technology and it has nothing to do with modernity, that in fact modernity is decreasing our quality of life and that its all purely related to new technologies

either that or i just really hate modernity for some reason i cant even explain, at least in feudalism you knew what was fucking what and you had to deal with a lot less bullshit, things were nice and simple if nothing else, i imagine you didnt have to deal with all the bullshit like sports, fashion, fake pleasantries, having to indulge people that they are important, celebrity cults (you could argue kings were also celebrity culture but at least they had an army or something, these modern celebrities dont even have that), random pretentious cunts everywhere who you have to pretend are important or smart for some unknown fucking reason, concerned busybodies who just cant mind their own fucking business and leave you alone, a whole bunch of annoying fucking cunts who have no right or reason to talk to you but they do anyway and you gotta smile and respond back or problems happen

feels like back in the day ALL the bullshit was condensed in just 1 village priest, you had to pretend for 2 minutes a week when he was around and that was it, and also there was always infinite wilderness you could escape to permanently and have your peace which we just dont have today, there's no wilderness anywhere, there's nowhere to fucking go anymore, you have to dance to their tune and you cant even take your chance elsewhere fighting bears with wooden spears instead even if you would fucking rather do that on a bad day

i dont know lately i feel so angry and mad at paying fines or social fines for not voting or saying the approved thing around my circle of "friends" who are imposed on me that i wish reactionaries or fucking anyone else was in charge of things, even if i had to plant turnips without mechanization my whole life and give away half of them and live without electricity or dentist
its not like you cant live a happy life in a wooden shack making moonshine your whole life, its the other people around you who make all the problems, at least back in the day you could escape somewhere in raw nature, even raw nature is more pleasant with all the crawling things and diseased ticks everywhere than waiting at post office, having to change someone elses flat tire, pay phone bill you absolutely fucking never use, smile till your cheeks are numb, chat about absolutely fucking nothing, listen to utterly pointless lectures from random nonames who just have to lecture to you, endure someone elses vile brats screaming near you, insist on bullshit you do not fucking want to insist on, guess ill stop here

The Committee of Public Safety analyzed it over 200 years ago and answered accordingly.

i understand your sentiments entirely but a lot of what you say is idealization. you also need to realize that embracing feudalist society comes with a whole set of other problems that only seem trifling from our shit society now. but they're real. rituals of deference, real and not just subjective hierarchies that have social and physical consequences for disobedience, legal inequality explicit in law, mystification simplifies things but also comes with its own emotional burdens and a sense of helplessness from forces that seem out of one's control when really they can be through reason and such.

One could argue that the base shapes the superstructure.

You don't know anything about anything.

I assure you that most of your annoyances would not go away in traditional societies.

Very related PDF on NRx-ers

The answer is not to be against modernization, but to push it further. Modernity gave us individualism and atomization, which is what you're asking for I think, but this atomization still has strings attached in the sense that one must lick the boots of the elites and play believe the symbolic order they impose on us is real, just in order to be allowed to live in their feif, call it nation-state, call it republic, but it's still a feif. Modernity isn't done until all the elites have been guillotined.

You can't separate modernity from technology, read Ted Kaczynski.

This. If Ted was right about one thing, it's that technology and the social changes it creates are inseparable. This is also why techno/futurist-fascists and Dark Enlightenment types are retarded, thinking you can have X social rules with Y tech and have it work.

I got this summary of Moldbug's ideas off of 4chan. Read it at your own peril.

Progressivism

Progressivism (also called Universalism) is responsible for the vast majority of the world's problems today. It is a non-theistic religion descended in a direct line from the various Dissenter sects of England. Although the belief in God was dropped during the religion's evolution in order to improve its ability to spread, the core of progressive beliefs are very similar to the Quaker beliefs of a few centuries ago. In short, progressives are dangerous and creepy religious maniacs who don't need to believe in God but that makes them no less dangerous, creepy or maniacal.

The conflict between progressivism and conservatism

Progressivism always wins in the long run. Conservatism can at most slow down the implementation of selected progressive ideas. This is because progressives dominate the universities, media and non-governmental organizations which allows them to mold public opinion. Progressives dominate those institutions because progressivism is a far more attractive ideology for people who are intelligent, ambitious and status-seeking. In the US conservatives are largely members of Protestant sects of American origin (mostly Evangelical sects) whereas progressives are the spiritual descendants of the English dissenters, so this conflict is essentially a religious one.

The US government

The Presidency and Congress are mainly ceremonial. The US is governed mainly by the permanent civil service bureaucracy although the real decisions are made at elite universities and then spread by the media and by non-governmental organizations. The universities, media and NGOs are all essential elements of the de facto government, which is referred to as the Polygon or the Cathedral. There is no conspiracy involved - the system is self-organized and self-perpetuating with no need for central leadership.

The military

Militaries are the only institutions with any importance or power which is not dominated by progressives. Because of this progressives burden the military with rules of engagement which make victory impossible and then use left-wing insurgencies or adventures in foreign countries to defeat the military in proxy wars.

Political parties

In a democracy with two major political parties, the more progressive party is referred to as the Inner Party and the more conservative party is the Outer Party. Supporting the Outer Party in any way is not an effective strategy against progressivism.

International relations

The US essentially runs the world since the aftermath of World War II. Many military conflicts around the world are usually best understood proxy wars in the struggle between progressivism and conservatism. What progressives refer to as independence means total dependence on the US. The current system should be replaced by a return to classical international law with all non-nuclear countries becoming client states of nuclear countries.

Insurgency

There has never been a successful right-wing insurgency in the XX century with the possible exception of Franco. Left-wing insurgencies can succeed as progressive auxillaries in the progressive-conservative in another (more powerful) country.

"the cathedral" might be the dumbest aspect of nrx ideology.

Or maybe the alternative is to become an anarch, on Junger's sense. Let's be real neoreactionaries aren't any closer to seizing power than marxists any time soon.

Idealist nerdy little wankers. They're just neo-fascists who again think their galaxy brains will change the course of history rather than materialism.

they're not all identical, but there's considerable overlap between the three that allows them to be subsumed into a single analysis that looks at the three components

Molburg suxxxx.

Listening to an interview with Nick Land now… he's already contradicting himself. It's just incoherent. He's saying that the neo-reactionary and monarchist movements are part of the libertarian right. He's right, in that the Ron Paul Libertarian movement did lead to the "Alt Right," but it's also completely meaningless. "Libertarian" is just the antonym of "authoritarian," and monarchism and the reactionary movement are by definition authoritarianism. The only reason there was any self-governance in monarchist England was because the kings were fucking terrible at governing, so the villages were often left to run themselves. If the kings had the technology and ability to control everyone, they would've been dictators.

Moldbug's writings on the American revolution are interesting.
He digs up primary sources forgotten by historians, which paint a very different picture than the American founding myth taught by our institutions.

It is supposed to be, but in fact, the libertarian right is just when it's the corporations who are authoritarians instead of the government, Nick Land is well aware of it.

every single problem you listed would have been worse in feudal society. you would not be able to escape into raw nature because you wouldn't have the resources(including knowledge) that modernity has given you. going inawoods is much easier today that you don't even have to give up internet access. sounds like you're a pushover so at least you'd have that going for you.

monarchism wasn't authoritarian historically because monarchs always struggled to monopolize power against local institutions and aristocrats. only from the 19th century did monarchy become consistently authoritarian using new technology and expanding bureaucracies n shit