Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Neoreactionaries versus (Religious) Reactionaries

*

Following from:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-does-neo-in-neoreaction-signify.html

A quick distinction:

*

Neoreaction (secular right, alt-right etc) focuses on social institutions - indeed, neoreaction regards institutions as primary.

Neoreactionaries say the problem with modernity is in the social institutions - (e.g. corruption by Leftism of The Cathedral of elite media, civil administration, educational organizations).

(Neoreaction regards religion as an institution, like any other.)

To fix modernity, the neoreactionaries say: first, fix the institutions.

They say: nothing good can happen unless we first fix the institutions.

They say: if (somehow, and that somehow is a major focus of discussion) we can fix the institutions - then things can, and probably will, improve.

*

Reactionaries (that is Religious Reactionaries) focus on religion.

Reactionaries say the problem of modernity is apostasy - the abandonment of religion.

We say: none of the above will happen without, first, religion.

Reactionaries say that religion is absolutely and unavoidably necessary (but not sufficient) to fix modernity.

*

Neoreaction disagrees because they see religion as an institution (just like any other) and corrupted by Leftism (just like any other), therefore: first fix the institutions.

*

Reaction regards religion as hierarchically-above other institutions, and something which cannot therefore be fixed by other institutions; but only by religion.

Reactionaries say: to fix the institutional basis of corrupt religion, we need real (not corrupt) religion, therefore: first, religion.

**