Trichotomy¶
The ‘Spandrellian Trichotomy’ (Nick B. Steves’ coinage, based on this post) has become an awesome engine of discussion. The topic is seething to such an extent that any linkage list will be out of date as soon as it is compiled. Among the most obvious way-markers are this, this, this, this, and this. Given the need to refer to this complex succinctly, I trust that abbreviating it to ‘the Trichotomy’ will not be interpreted as a clumsy attempt to obstruct Spandrell’s Nobel Peace Prize candidacy.
What is already broadly agreed?
(1) There is a substratum of neoreactionary consensus, involving a variety of abominated realist insights, especially the contribution of deep heritage to socio-political outcomes. Whilst emphasis differs, an ultra-Burkean attitude is tacitly shared, and among those writers who self-identify with the Dark Enlightenment, the importance of HBD is generally foregrounded.
(2) Neoreaction also shares an enemy: the Cathedral (as delineated by Mencius Moldbug). On the nature of this enemy much is agreed, not least that it is defined by a project of deep heritage erasure — both ideological and practical — which simultaneously effaces its own deep heritage as a profound religious syndrome, of a peculiar type. Further elaboration of Cathedral genealogy, however, ventures into controversy. (In particular, its consistency with Christianity is a fiercely contested topic.)
(3) As neoreactionary perspectives are systematized, they tend to fall into a trichotomous pattern of dissensus. This, ironically, is something that can be agreed. The Trichotomy, or neoreactionary triad, is determined by divergent identifications of the Western tradition that the Cathedral primarily suppresses: Christian, Caucasian, or Capitalist. My preferred terms for the resultant neoreactionary strains are, respectively, the Theonomist; the Ethno-Nationalist; and the Techno-Commercial. These labels are intended to be accurate, neutral descriptions, without intrinsic polemical baggage.
It is to be expected — at least initially, and occasionally — that each strain will seek to dismiss, subordinate, or amalgamate the other two. If they were not so tempted, their trichotomous disintegration would never have arisen. Each must believe that it, alone, has the truth, or the road to truth, unless sheer insincerity reigns.
Outside in does not pretend to impartiality, but it asserts
an invincible disillusionment.
— If the Trichotomy was reducible, the new reaction would already be
one thing. It isn’t, and it isn’t (soon) going to be.
— As astrology reveals, and more ‘sophisticated’ systems confirm,
people delight in being categorized, accepting non-universality as
the real price of identification. (The response to Scharlach’s
diagram attests to that.)
— Accepting the Trichotomy and the arguments it organizes is a way
to be tested, and any neoreactionary position that refuses it will
die a flabby death.
— The Trichotomy makes it impossible for neoreaction to play at
dialectics with the Cathedral. For that reason alone, we should be
grateful to it. Unity — even oppositional unity — was never on our
side.