I used to see people elsewhere post a lot of (intentional?) wordsalad describing detailed complex "neoreactionary" views which they admitted was purposely verbose (using more words than necessary to filter out "pseuds" or dumber people).
This seems to have filtered out in favor of a general MAGA populism (?), maybe just because it's the biggest alternative movement that's closest nearby to those views (?).
Anyway is anyone in to NRx views or is it a stale or dead meme at this point or what should we think of it?
> If you want the lights to stay on and the potholes filled, long term, then the women had better be choosing the kind of men who fill the potholes and engineer the electricity as the fathers of the next generation.
Perhaps the bio-realism could have been phrased more brutally. Society needs people to be intelligent, so intelligent women should be at home having intelligent children, not having careers. When I say 'Darwinism' I intend that biologically, genetics, inheritance, pleiotropy, polygenic inheritance, heterosis, etc.
> Applying it in practice to conservatism
is metaphorical. The bad kind of metaphorical, that paints with too broad a brush.
In the past, monarchy was advocated by priests who preached the divine right of kings. In the future monarchy will be advocated by historians who document the failure of democracy. I don't see neoreaction as being religious in the purely pious sense of the word.
Some people see religion as a good thing because humans need a code to live by and they point to a particular religious code as working well in practice.
Pious folk condemn the previous paragraph as atheistic in spirit. God is God. Treating God as a tree, to be judged by its fruit, denies God his divinity.
Psychologically minded folk notice that you cannot *believe* just because the moral code works.
At the intersection of neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment is the observation that a moral code for humans that actually works out well and lasts, is something truly precious. Precious enough to inspire religious veneration. I don't see religion in this Deistic sense as requiring a rejection of Darwinism. It could even require it; if society is to last for dozens of generations we have to be realistic about breeding, and we have seen too much to unsee it.