Identitarianism vs Neo-reaction

Here’s an interesting interview with Gregory Hood & Michael McGregor on the similarities and differences between identitarianism and neo-reaction.

Here’s some more info on both schools of thought.


F. Roger Devlin: “The Rectification of Names: Guillaume Faye’s Why We Fight

Georges Feltin-Tracol:  “Back to the Future: Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism


Nick Land:  Dark Enlightenment Series

Neo-reaction on Twitter.

Personally, I think that both schools of thought overlap and are more similar than either side wants to admit.

9 thoughts on “Identitarianism vs Neo-reaction

  1. roho

    Ronald Reagan was considered the “Great Communicator”, not because he gave great speeches to the intellectuals of Ivy League institutions, but because he spoke to the masses. (Common Man). Democracy (Mob Rule) only changes when the mob understands the benefits. Philosophers, Rulers, and Academia are usually the first victims of change.

    Immigration is nothing more than Human Trafficking, and it was mastered thousands of years ago by a small group that also mastered finance. Be it slaves, prostitutes, immigrants, it all boils down to cheap labor, that is the temptation to all profit driven cultures. (Even body organs of dead humans now have black market value.) Even the good European Brits enjoy their sick secret societies of child pedophilia.

    The Melting Pot Experiment was a failure……….A planned and organized failure at best.

    The World was better off with Asians in Asia, Europeans in Europe, Negroes in Africa, and Colonialism outside the nations for PROFIT. Outside the 100 years of humiliation, and Sassoon manipulation, the Chinese intend to show the power of a one race unity culture.

    Mao said that true justice flows from the barrel of a gun, and technology almost always guarentees the biggest gun!……………………………..Move over melting pots!


  2. filmercht

    The Archeofuturism of Faye is going to turn off a lot of traditionalists. I think for now we are all part of some grand spectrum of “againstists,” as I believe Hawthorne has called it, but with some significant underlying differences.


  3. hawthornecht

    The Dark Enlightenment was heavily influenced by the anti-philosophy around Rothbard–a negationist point of view that spawned most of our world (e.g. revisionist history.) It’s heavily multi-discipline as a strength.

    Idenitarians tend towards a more simple framework suited for pop-culture and politics as an extension.

    I used againstism* and “Anti-Ruling Class” all those years ago, but it was sav, who started using Againstism–which also covered trends in music (e.g. anti-Nashville) as well as other spheres.

    *Rothbard wrote something like; “if they are for it, we are against it” in the early 90s which is where I got it from.


  4. weavercht

    Even Feltin-Tracol’s article mentions transhumanism. Is that some small thing?

    Eventually I’d like to put up a website that just highlights all the brilliance that has come from the American Right. I agree with the Identitarians likely on most things, but transhumanism is the ultimate opponent in my mind.

    Odin knew Fenrir would kill him at Ragnarok, and I know transhumanism will destroy us. The only difference is some survived Ragnarok.


  5. weavercht

    “Rothbard wrote something like; “if they are for it, we are against it” in the early 90s which is where I got it from.”

    That’s bad advice.

    A true hammer would be for what he’s for and against what he’s against. If one just opposes what someone else supports, one seems more of an anvil or perhaps a third category: a reactionary in the worst sense.

    Rather than Buckley’s “stand athwart history”, why not stand for something?


  6. weavercht

    I suppose Critical Theory is all about undermining the West, and in that sense we might be interested in undermining the current elites. But that’s a mass movement. A movement that has existence would stand for something even if keeping that hidden.

    I guess that’s obvious though…


  7. hawthornecht

    It’s not bad political advice–it worked for Reagan. Don’t over think the line in context–particularly in the context of long essay. For example, to keep a disparate group together, just be against anything they are for. War in Iraq? Against. Man Made Global Warming? Against. Invade Syria? Against. Like it or not, you are part of this againstism. There are a few hold outs (one turned up on an alt right comment thread the other day but teaching political discipline needs a place to start and that is where we are at.


  8. weavercht

    Meyer’s Fusionism was basically Trads falling in line behind the Libertarians. Even if Meyer wasn’t that influential, that’s pretty much what happened to Trads on the whole. I don’t think we truly won the Cold War. Uniting was killing us. The Neocons long for another great opponent.

    Separately, being against something as was done with Critical Theory is a good way to destroy a target/elite or a good way to unite a group as you say, but we should praise what we like too.

    Anyway, this is a stupid debate, because we invariably agree: Uniting is wonderful so long as one of our own is in charge. If another faction rules the union, then unity might be dangerous. Some of the factions we’re political allies with but spiritual (in the erm nonreligious sense) enemies. So uniting can be worse than disunity and a resulting lost battle.

    I’d rather comment on that article: I like the “anti-racist is anti-white” meme. And if I or the South has committed a wrong, I’d rather be honest about it and even apologise with the caveat that any group with power invariably sins. Americans wouldn’t think so poorly of us if they were taught more history, enough to realise it’s human nature they find revolting. Blacks should be grateful we treated them so well. Most in a similar position would not have. The Athenians (Thucydides) gave the same answer. I posted the quote at CHT in the past.

    When Japan denies war atrocities, it errs. It needn’t hang its head in shame, but it should attempt honesty.

    I’ve heard Bowden’s argument before, but it’s wrong. I suppose it’s Nietzchean? I’m not from that faction.

    I get that morality is relative at times even from a Christian perspective, that it’s difficult to defend our right to part of North America; but we’re here now. And I don’t see a need for justification beyond our having a right to our own lands. We’re preserving what exists now, not conquering new lands.

    It’s wrong to destroy us now that we’re here. Just as it was wrong what was done to the Amerindians at times.

    Anyway one argument you’ll respect, though you’ve heard it before of course: Game Theory. If we take the approach that we want preservation and stability, we’re not seen as a threat by others. And we are indeed weak right now. If we however take the mighty Nietzchean tooth-and-claw approach, we’ll be rightly seen as a threat.

    What I like about the Swiss and the Spartans is that they were always ready for a fight, not that they went out looking for one or went out conquering. I believe Machiavelli was right that Sparta wasn’t designed to adapt into an empire, but Athens could adapt for such. That’s partly why I like Sparta and aristocracy. And I think a defensive view like that is the right one for survival. If there’s a need for the military to stay in practice, there’s always some war going on somewhere.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s