There has been talk now within neoreaction about “What shall be done?” We know, on the basis of accumulated evidence and a number of compatible and competing theories interpreting that evidence that society is going to shit. Even my own generation, more effectively indoctrinated than any other generation before it, can already tell that the project of liberalism has fucked them over an indescribable amount. While this has caused some preliminary scapegoating (e.g. OWS) as the sense that something is wrong combined with a desire to do something, goddamnit, spills over into a mad desire to secure our future. Lacking any sound basis for assigning blame, you end up with a proto-liberal call for restrictions on the market, as though it were the market’s fault and not the political conditions of its occurrence (i.e. what libertarians diagnose as intervention). It’s only going to get worse. I think older generations are unaware of how much my generation will learn to hate them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a version of stage trials convicting our elders for “crimes against humanity.” At the very least, it is likely such stage trials would begin with the politicians, then the judges, and all those involved in the political system, though I would reckon the harm shall outweigh the benefit.
What is to be done? What will be done? I see two major live options. These are subversion and exit.
Subversion has the goal of either toppling or capturing the Cathedral by the placing of allies within key points of the system and capturing the bottlenecks of inter-institutional coordination. Gaining access to these nodes of power, they can be turned against the Cathedral, to dismantle it or to deploy it to neoreactionary purposes. Assuming covert infiltration of the system can take place, a relatively bloodless coup could be pulled off; it all comes down to what the Wand of Fnargl is actually made of. Is Fnargl a mere legend or an actual social device? If the Wand of Fnargl is only a myth, then bloodless subversion may not be possible, and the launching of an actual civil war might be a consequence.
Subversion is a very risky plan, but it has the highest potential payoff. The establishment of a strong authoritarian rule to ride out the Interesting Years as mass social re-structuring unlike any seen before works itself out in American and European society. If you want an analogy to the Interesting Years, try the Five Year Plan. The mass re-structuring which will need to take place will take at least one generation, and there will be lots of death, lots of starvation, lots of missed opportunities. If you think this is so bad that subversion shouldn’t even be considered, consider that it will be even worse if nothing is ever done.
Exit is relatively costless, at least for those who undertake it. This strategy, unlike subversion, is much simpler and much less risky. Quite simply, exist amounts to leaving and establishing one’s livelihood in a different system. Chile seems to be a popular destination (and I know it’s my own intent as well).
In order for exist to remain feasible, though, a capturing of the system shall still have to take place. It won’t require as comprehensive a capture, but at least a mechanism to keep out liberal elements and retain reactionary elements will need to take place. Exit is pointless if the problems are able to exported to your own home.
A more extreme version of exit would be not only leaving for another society, but actually creating one’s own society. This ties up the problem of problems following you to your new society quite neatly; if you are not merely an individual within another society, but are the primary constituent of that society, you can enforce much stricter standards of admission to your society. When the Interesting Times come upon America and Europe of its own accord, whether or not a neoreactionary subversion is attempted, strong gates will be required to keep the barbarians out.
These are the broadest, but I believe still highly realistic, potential neoreactionary responses to the degenerating culture, with attendant consequences. I wouldn’t doubt the likelihood that the “movement,” to reify the actions of individuals into an apparent kind that isn’t ontologically real, will ultimately be something between the two. Some will choose to exit, some will try to rescue their culture. I reckon those who are older and more invested in the present system are more likely to seek after staying and subverting the system, while those who are younger and have fewer investments binding them to this system will feel freer to cut what few ties they have and to seek opportunity abroad.
Which is best? I’m not sure. A multi-headed strategy might be best; certainly there will be enough of us to do both, and success for both strategies would have the highest returns for avoiding the worst consequences of the Interesting Times and continuing on with the social goals of human flourishing. This leaves us some questions for determining what the neoreactionary response should, could, and/or would be constituted by:
1) What is the Wand of Fnargl? Is it really only a magical presupposition of a thought experiment, or is there something which could be instantiated that could only best be called the Wand of Fnargl?
2) What is exit? How “far away” does one have to get, and how does one secure the benefits of exit over the long run, i.e. keep the problems from following after oneself?
3) Is the risk of Interesting Times worth it? What are we willing to sacrifice in order to get history back on the right track? How many lives?
4) What will happen if subversion isn’t even attempted? What can we project society to be like if the trends continue?