A confluence of sharp minds is taking place on the internet. Intelligent writers covering a wide range of issues have realized that conventional understandings of civilization and its history don’t “work.” The theories fail to hold predictive value. The models are broken. To repurpose an image from one of the original writers:
“It is impossible to enumerate the full list of reasons behind this belief. It’s like asking you why you prefer a romantic candlelight dinner for two at a simple, yet elegant, French restaurant, to being dragged alive behind an 18-wheeler at highway speed until there is nothing on the rope but a bloody flap of skin.” – Mencius Moldbug, “An Open Letter to Progressives,” pg 121
To answer the above question would be difficult, not for lack of reasons, but for an abundance of reasons; it is difficult to decide where to start. Furthermore, the fact that the question was even posed leads the reader to believe that the questioner not only needs an answer, he needs help. Specifically, he needs help so badly that he doesn’t even recognize it.
Thus it is that the questions with the most obvious answers are also the hardest to effectively answer. Ask 10 people, you’ll get 10 answers, and hopefully at least a few referrals to psychiatric care. The nature of the problem unites these writers, but the difficulty in answering it divides them.
In this environment, the establishment which peddles the broken models has wisely chosen to avoid attempts to defend the indefensible. That is to say, they are not attempting to refute the analyses which have exposed the system’s failures. Instead, they are taking hold of the fragmentation among these writers and attempting to rip the community apart at its own seams, through a series of mischaracterizations, character assassinations, and naked aggression and outrage.
In response, it has become necessary to begin consolidating the theory of Neoreaction. Wisely, the first step has been a reversal of the opponent’s greatest success. Where progressivism dismantled the Western canon, tore down cultural reference points and defamed its heroes, replacing affirmative role models with amorphous and uninspiring criticism, Neoreaction is reestablishing a canon; an affirmative set of beliefs to serve as a guide.
As a canon, it is authoritative, but not proscriptive. Just as reference points are not themselves a path, neither does this collection of writings purport to describe a precise model of action. That would be premature, at this point. Nevertheless, publishing it serves two purposes. First, it guides the development of the community. Second, it will sharpen criticism into comments that are demonstrably false and comments that can be acknowledged and used to sharpen the ideas and concepts in the canon itself.
And so I present the Neoreactionary Canon, compiled by Bryce Laliberte