I thought I would take the time to spell out my position on neoreaction since my ideas do not seem orthodox to typical neoreactionary consensus. There are two types of deviation from an established orthodoxy; ignorance and disagreement. In the first case, the reader does not understand NRx premises (usually because they haven't read Moldbug thoroughly enough) and undermines them by bringing in liberal notions. In the second case the person has read lots of Moldbug and simply disagrees. I tend to fall into this second position. For clarification I will take Nick Land's Premises of NRx as my guide and comment on them. From this you can see where I stand.
"1. Democracy is unable to control government. With this proposition, the effective possibility of a mainstream right is denied. Insofar as any political movement retains its allegiance to the democratic mechanism, it conspires in the ratchet of government expansion, and thus essentially dedicates itself to leftist ends. The gateway from Libertarianism to Neoreaction opens with this understanding. As a corollary, any politics untroubled by expansionist statism has no reason to divert itself into the neoreactionary path."
"Democracy is unable to control government"
I agree with this proposition completely. Democracy is unable to control government. And America is not a democracy anymore. It is an oligarchy. The vote of the average voter is irrelevant. The fact that the Democratic party is bringing in immigrants to undermine white voters per say does not mean that white votes matter. It means that they have to change the electorate in order to create the pretense that white votes matter. To say that white genocide is motivated by a desire to change policies is not completely precise. It is motivated by a need to maintain appearances when policies are changed. The policies are going to be changed no matter what. Mass migration is not so much about changing voters as creating the appearance that changes in policy are legitimate. The policies will change regardless. Immigration is all about maintaining the appearance of democracy. The alt-right has causality reversed. They think immigration changes policy. In reality, an agenda exists to change policy already. Immigrant votes are the necessary illusion to justify it. The policy change is foretold. It is of course a little more complicated that this, but if sovereignty is conserved then bottom up power is irrelevant. Thus, immigrants are irrelevant. They are the pawn, and not the cause, of policy change.
"it conspires in the ratchet of government expansion, and thus essentially dedicates itself to leftist ends."
And so does the alt-right, even though they do not realize it. State expansion is driven by cycles of entrenchment. I will talk about entrenchment cycles in the future. I have already talked about state expansion and its major cause in legislative accumulation.
Moldbug is where I differ. He thinks the cause is leftism through the Cathedral. I believe it is entrenchment cycles. This difference informs a completely different answer to the problem of state expansion. Moldbug proscribes a CEO / neocameral king. For this reason he thinks democracy is untenable. I grant that divided power systems expand faster than unified ones. But I do not grant that unified power systems do not expand. Monarchy, after all, became British democracy. Thus, my approach is "system agnostic," and favors measures designed to counteract entrenchment cycles instead. I favor newly designed self-stabilizing systems that halt state expansion by balancing themselves. I do not strictly favor monarchy.
"2. The egalitarianism essential to democratic ideology is incompatible with liberty. This proposition is partially derivative from #1, but extends further. When elaborated historically, and cladistically, it aligns with the Crypto-Calvinist theory of Western (and then Global) political evolution. The critique it announces intersects significantly with the rigorous findings of HBD. The conclusions drawn are primarily negative, which is to say they support a principled rejection of positive egalitarian policy. Emergent hierarchy is at least tolerated. More assertive, ‘neofeudal’ models of ideal social hierarchy are properly controversial within Neoreaction."
Agreed. Equality itself is evil since it makes the moral respect the immoral. It makes the intelligent dumb themselves down for the stupid, the courageous act cowardly so as not to appear superior, etc. I do not favor feudalism per say though. Hereditary right is not going to place the superior man in power. It will instead place his spoiled son on the throne. I favor meritocratic systems over feudal ones. My view is that everyone has the right to get what they want—and be destroyed by it.
"3. Neoreactionary socio-political solutions are ultimately Exit-based. In every case, exit is to be defended against voice. No society or social institution which permits free exit is open to any further politically efficient criticism, except that which systematic exit selection itself applies. Given the absence of tyranny (i.e. free exit), all forms of protest and rebellion are to be considered leftist perversions, without entitlement to social protection of any kind. Government, of whatever traditional or experimental form, is legitimated from the outside — through exit pressure — rather than internally, through responsiveness to popular agitation. The conversion of political voice into exit-orientation (for instance, revolution into secessionism), is the principal characteristic of neoreactionary strategy."
I agree with this also, though many in NRx, (and especially the alt-right) really just want to kill their enemies, conquer them, rape their women and take their stuff. I have heard it said in conversations that centralization is the future, and that exit-based answers are untenable. In this regard I disagree. I do not which to live in any system without city states and exit. This is more than just personal hatred of the jackboot. Without exit, systems have no break on tyranny, and without exit they have no way of removing subversiveness from society. For example; giving communists a few counties in America may seem anathema to many reactionaries, but it siphons off trouble makers. Exit creates the fantastic feature of self-deportation. Many in NRx think the god king is the only answer. To that I give them this. The system I have proposed, exitarianism, prevents hostility by catering to human tribalism and ideological difference in a controlled manner. And civilization is built on proscribed expression of primate impulses. One indulges human primate impulses in a pro-civilizational manner to bring about constructive behavior. One of the great flaws of the modern left is its alliance with anti-civilizational forces to enhance its power.
So my essential difference with Moldbug is a rejection of the notion that memetics is the ultimate cause of Americas problems, (assuming I am interpreting him correctly here). I hold a different, structurally derived view. This is actually more consistent with "power above culture," than Moldbug himself. If the expansion of power is the result of structural sources within power itself, then that is actually more consistent with sovereignty being conserved.
Moldbug's actual views evolved over time. So it is different to pin down exactly what they are. But I believe that it is the internal structure of institutions that dictate how they decay, as well as external pressures through the 5 phase process. A quick sketch of causes of the degenerative ratchet would go something like this;
Cause no. 1, legislative accumulation, (causes state growth, entrenchment of left-wing power, increasing ideological control, and increasing market distortion).
Cause no. 2, entrenchment cycles, (makes entire sections of government beyond reform, represents re-patrimonialization).
Cause no. 3, technologically induced moral decay, (guns create democracy, printing press creates demotism, birth control creates the sexual revolution, and nuclear weapons prevent democracy from destroying itself).
Cause no. 4, synthesis of incentives that cause mass immigration, (mass transportation technology makes it possible while incentives of democracy make it inevitable).
See Neocameral Future for further reading.