I have tried to be charitable towards these ideas, which means this post will be pushing politically incorrect and offensive positions.
If you do not want to read it, especially the middle parts which are about race, I would totally understand that.
But a system of repression that doesn’t involve obvious state violence is little different in effect than one that does.
It’s simply more efficient and harder to overthrow.
Having judged past societies positively, we’ll then look at what aspects of their cultures, governments, and religions made them so successful, and whether we could adopt those to modern life.
Much of this will be highly politically incorrect and offensive, because that’s what Reactionaries do.
I started reading a little about Reaction after incessantly being sent links to various Mencius Moldbug posts, and then started hanging out in an IRC channel with a few Reactionaries (including the infamous Konkvistador) whom I could question about it.
Obviously this makes me the world expert who is completely qualified to embark on the hitherto unattempted project of explaining it to everyone else. But the fact is, I’ve been itching to prsent an argument against Reactionary thought for a long time, but have been faced with the dual problem of not really having a solid target and worrying that everyone not a Reactionary would think I was wasting my time even talking to them.
This is the post where I argue that modern society is rotten to the core, and that the only reasonable solution is to dig up King James II, clone him, and give the clone absolute control over everything.
And just as well try to give a quick summary of the sweeping elegaic paeans to a bygone age of high culture and noble virtues that is Reaction.
But there is some content, and some of it is disconcerting.
Reaction isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s not suggesting there’s a secret campaign for organized repression.
To steal an example from the other side of the aisle, it’s positing something more like patriarchy.