Explaining Neoreaction to a 5-Year-Old

A small tidbit I saw from the Reddit, Explain like I’m Five by Nick Bentham. I rather liked it.

Like you’re a five year old, eh? Hmmm…

This is actually quite easy.

You know how your dad is like the boss of everything, but he still loves you and your mom and everything? And how, basically he’s a good guy and even though he makes mistakes sometimes, you all love him back? And how the rules that you may have as a family are pretty much decided by dad and mom and kids aren’t consulted very much? And how even if you do have a rule, how dad or mom can break them when necessary because they are really looking out for the family’s interests?

Well neoreaction basically says THAT arrangement is (actually ferreal) a government. And all governments are derived from that relationship, and in a very real sense inherit its essence.


  1. Harold:

    You know the government, the king and his friends? Well, it’s like in our home: I [father] go to work, get money, and buy stuff. Also, I make the rules. You kids can’t buy stuff and can’t make rules. So, the king and his friends make decisions for the country, big decisions, like going to war; but the rest of the people in the country can’t make such decisions. I’m your father so I buy things and make decisions to make life better for the family; the king tries to be like a father and make good decisions for his country.

  2. That anon retweet is hilarious FN. Sick. But funny. I have gone to 4chan many times. I always laugh more at that site than anything else in my life right up to the point where I see some traumatizing picture that burns a hole in my brain.

  3. uh—I still don’t have a clue what neoreaction is. And telling me it is a government that rules me, the stupid kid, like some loving mom and dad who rules the kids,still doesn’t help me understand at all. Personally, my parents weren’t either loving or kind or good rule makers and keepers. And neither are any governments I know. Maybe if I had great parents or a great government I would know what you are talking about.
    And I am a partner in a litigation law firm. I’m not stupid. And I know that in a courtroom I have about 10 to 15 seconds, maximum, to state my position or argument. After that, people drift away.
    My personal opinion is neoreaction must be a bunch of eggheads who think they are dark and edgy.
    If this is the best explanation, do you know what neoreaction is? Can anybody help me out?
    And if you can’t tell me succinctly and clearly you flunk your essay. Because if you can’t summarize it in a few short paragraphs I don’t think you know what it is either.

  4. Thanks, Steve, I rather expected snark from a dark and edgy geek in favor of monarchy. I did look “neoreaction” up again and got this:
    “That’s the ‘neo’ in ‘neoreaction.’ It not only promotes drastic regression, but
    highly advanced drastic regression. Like retrofuturism, paleomodernism and
    cybergothic, the work ‘neoreaction’ compactly describes a time-twisted vector
    that spirals forward into the past, and backwards into the future. It emerges, almost
    automatically as the present is torn tidally apart-when the democratic-Keynsian politics
    of postponement-displacement exhausts itself, and the kicked-can runs out of the road.
    Expressed with abtruse verbosity, therefore, neoreaction is a time-crisis manifested
    through paradox, whose further elaboration can wait,(if not for long.) Disordering our
    most basic intuitions, it is, by it’s very nature,difficult to grasp. Could anything easily be
    said about it.
    Don’t worry , I’m gone from this. I’d rather be subjected to an art snob at a
    Modern Art Gallery (so I can be told that the feces floating in a bucket is art.) Anyway-go
    for it -dudes without women, geeks for the monarchy. I’ll go home, work out, have a drink and bang the girlfriend.

  5. “And I am a partner in a litigation law firm. I’m not stupid.”

    Appealing to stupid people and modeling their thinking for too long has made you stupid – or at least superficial and glib. There’s no rigorous one paragraph summary of where the modern progressive state goes wrong and why.

    Have fun chasing ambulances and not thinking too hard about anything.

  6. Aristotle would approve:

    “And since, as we saw,7 the science of household management has three divisions, one the relation of master to slave, of which we have spoken before,8 one the paternal relation, and the third the conjugal9—for it is a part of the household science to rule over wife and children (over both as over freemen, yet not with the same mode of government, but over the wife to exercise republican government and over the children monarchical.”

    Politics Book II 1259a

    Shakespeare would approve:

    “Note me this, good friend;
    Your most grave belly was deliberate,
    Not rash like his accusers, and thus answer’d:
    ‘True is it, my incorporate friends,’ quoth he,
    ‘That I receive the general food at first,
    Which you do live upon; and fit it is,
    Because I am the store-house and the shop
    Of the whole body: but, if you do remember,
    I send it through the rivers of your blood,
    Even to the court, the heart, to the seat o’ the brain;
    And, through the cranks and offices of man,
    The strongest nerves and small inferior veins
    From me receive that natural competency
    Whereby they live: and though that all at once,
    You, my good friends,’–this says the belly, mark me,–”

    Menenius, from Coriolanus.

  7. Explaining NeoReactionary to a five year old: a bunch of Jews or half-Jews being completely ahistorical plus typically idealistic by trying to blame everything on the Puritans.
    (and yes, the figureheads are Jewish see Nick Land and Moldbug, and no I don’t distaste the Jews, but realise that they can have a very ingrained temperament, whether for good or bad).

Leave a Reply