“Have you heard of this guy? Moldbug’s acolyte, who claims everyone misinterprets the original prophet. Only the acolyte himself knows what the wise ones were truly saying.”
A männerbund’s strength is tested once it receives a couple of blows. Reaction has plenty of natural dissenters, ergo the reaction blogosphere is a good place to deliver and receive some blows. Reactionary Future is good at delivering blows. Let’s return some blows.
RF’s main thesis is that the combined works of Moldbug + de Jouvenel is a complete explanation for the way in which power works. I disagree and I see 2 main problems.
The first problem is that the synthesis between Moldbug & de Jouvenel is forced. Moldbug is the San Franciscan intellectual father of modern reaction, de Jouvenel was a French liberal who was realistic about the nature of power. There is some overlap but no definite synchronization of these 2 thinkers. RF forces a connection and by doing so de facto creates a 3-way connection in which he himself becomes the 3rd name in the Brahmin-triangle. In doing so he assumes moral high-ground which allows him to chastise others for not being True reactionaries. Or, well, yeah, they are reactionaries but since reaction has nothing to do with Moldbug it doesn’t matter anyway. Denoting holy status to important works is good and all, but the claim to holiness here is obvious. The power of difficult scripture usually does not lie in the scripture itself but with the person interpreting the scripture.
The second and more pressing problem is that ‘Moldbug + de Jouvenel’ creates a closed system: ‘these works contain all there is to know about power, so study them.’ This amounts to a Brahmin re-education program which I believe to be unnecessary. I find myself in Jim’s camp: we have been led for too long by priests who have failed us. Now is not the time for brahmins to devise new post-progressivism cathedrals. Now is the time for warriors to overthrow the current cathedral and rule like kings. Brahmin signaling should be directed towards advising Vaisyas: Brahmin advice should be practical and useful. RF is barking up the wrong tree by giving Brahmins advice in what holy books they should read instead of giving Vaisyas advice in how to rule. People will read whatever books they will and remember whatever theories they will remember. Repeating the works of smarter thinkers is fair game but putting a lid on it and exclaiming ‘there it’s done now!’ achieves little. It is simply not the way in which Schelling points work.
So in conclusion Reactionary Future over-expanded his intellectual territory. The initial message impresses, but the grandeur is too vapid. Also I disliked that he did not approve a comment I left on his blog. That is all I have to say about that.