After about a year, Michael Anissimov at More Right has responded to science fiction author and screenwriter David Brin’s attack on Neoreaction.
The key passage:
I stand by these statements. Aristocratic systems are more fiscally stable. They are more decentralized and less susceptible to failures of the central government. This is exactly the kind of “antifragile” governance our chaotic modern world needs. The current system is highly susceptible to catastrophic failure. We need less federal and state spending, and more local spending. It’s a question of resilience. Communities will shape their own fates; not have their fates shaped by compulsory entanglement with the federal and state governments. As for governance, private government is more reliable and predictable. Let others take their chances with public government. We’ve seen what public government can do, and we don’t like it.
Most of the positions advocated within the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ are, in fact, moderate positions when considered in historical context, even completely non-controversial. The only context in which they are radical is in the current one, in which radicals who share David Brin’s point of view enjoy a temporary perch of influence atop what was once (but is no longer) the largest economy in the world.
It should be noted that Taleb’s book, Antifragile, earned a $4 million advance from a mainstream publisher and was a New York Times best-seller. That book is more closely in accord to what neoreactionaries write about than it is in accord with universal-enlightenment-democracy advocated by a figure like Brin or Francis Fukuyama.
Compared to Taleb, as Anissimov writes, most Dark Enlightenment writers are ‘fringe figures’ in the contemporary sense, but when compared to the historical norm, it’s representing the ordinary, mainstream position in the European tradition.
Frog Do says
“Liberality has many components which can be evaluated individually and approved or disapproved on their individual merits. It isn’t necessary to view liberalism as a take-it-or-leave it monolithic package. Similarly, there is much contention among liberals about the specific implications of liberal principles being applied to individual cases.”
This, I think, is a critical paragraph in terms of predicting the future.
I have the feeling that reading the Outer Right one would get the impression that democracy and liberalism are one hundred percent terrible in all times and all situations, which is much stronger than the relatively moderate claims in this piece. But maybe that’s just the effect of Twitter and blogs.
Peter Blood says
As Evola said: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”