*
It seems that it is a core
belief on the secular Right, including Neoreaction, that modern
Leftism, political correctness, was caused by Christianity;
and that Christianity is intrinsically pro-Left.
This is just
plain wrong; and
I and others have refuted this on many occasions and argued the
(almost) opposite view with a piling-on of evidence - that Leftism
was anti-Christian in its very foundations, and continuing (very
obviously - in materially supporting and concealing the almost
complete obliteration of Christianity in the Middle East over the
past decade); however, this is one of those many situations when
argument does not make any difference.
So, accepting that
Neoreaction cannot share the following analysis; what is
Neoreaction from the perspective of the (real) Christian Right?
*
(The (real) Christian Right
being the shared political perspective of all 'real' Christians - as
contrasted with the fake pseudo-anti-Christianity of 'liberal
Christianity' - which is the religion of the majority who
self-identify as Christians. This distinction between real and fake
Christians is about motivation rather than doctrine; and in this
respect liberal Christians are analogous to the vast majority of
dishonest, career-orientated fake-pseudo-scientists who self-identify
as scientists but are in reality merely docile bureaucrats. Real
science is about the honest intention to understand the natural
world; not about hype and funding, power, prizes and peer review.
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk
. By analogy, real Christianity is about aspiring to structure
society by Christianity,
aiming at that goal using whatever means - and there are large
disagreements here, rather than the opposite liberal (pseudo-)
Christian goal of structuring Christianity by society.)
*
Neoreaction is (it now
seems) founded upon anti-Christianity - but not in the sense of
'being nasty to Christians'. Neoreactionaries aren't usually nasty to
Christians, quite the opposite - they try to enrol Christians on
their side. But anti-Christian in genuinely blaming (their definition
of) Christianity for causing what Neoreactionaries themselves regard
as the greatest evils in the modern world.
From the Religious Right
perspective, therefore, Neoreaction shares
the anti-Christian foundational belief of the Left.
Ergo
Neoreaction is
of the Left.
*
But clearly Neoreaction is
not
of the politically correct mainstream Left - to whom Neoreaction is
very hostile.
So if anti-Christianity was
historically the primary belief of Leftism, then it is probably at
the secondary
level of belief that Neoreactionaries differ from the politically
correct New Left.
Historically,
anti-Christianity was the primary
doctrine of Leftism, and the secondary
doctrine was being against the King: was anti-Monarchial (i.e.
Leftism was 'Republican' in a broad sense that includes English,
French and American Revolutions).
And this is exactly
where Neoreaction diverges from the modern mainstream PC New Left:
Neoreaction is pro-Monarchial forms of government - when Monarchy is
conceptualized in terms of a unified, formal and mandatory
hierarchical structure of social organization with a single Man at
the top.
Of course, being
anti-Christian means that the Man at the Top cannot be divinely
sanctioned - so Neoreactionaries think in terms of a society run by a
Dictator, or a Chief Executive rather than a real King.
But this pro-Monarchial
foundation is the explanation for some of the most striking aspects
of Neoreaction where they most sharply diverge from modern Leftism -
such as being explicitly pro-slavery (because absolute opposition to
slavery, with no regard for cost or consequences, was a very early
dogma of the Left).
*
So here is a terse
definition of Neoreaction seen from the Christian Right perspective:
Neoreaction
is Monarchial Leftism
*
(Alternatively, Neoreaction
is in favour of non-Christian Monarchy - i.e. a dictatorship, or a
society structured like an ideal-type of an effective modern
institution or corporation.)
*
