Aristonothos was a Greek potter and vase painter who flourished around the second quarter of the [7th] century and seems to have worked at Caere. He is well known to art historians for a ceramic winemixing bowl (krater) signed with his name, decorated on one side with a scene of two Etruscan ships engaged in a sea battle, and on the other with a depiction of Odysseus blinding the cyclops. His name in Greek literally means “Best Bastard.”[i]

In starting this blog, I have taken something of an unprecedented step. It is wildly out of character for me to even consider moving beyond the familiar, to stop watching, unnoticed, from the shore and step into the deep water of interaction. But one cannot build a movement, least of all an important one without interaction, and I have finally found an intellectual home.

Aristonothos Krater

The Aristonothos Krater in the Capitoline Museum

It would be fair to shrug derisively. Who amI to provide any value to a movement?

Suffice to say I am Australian, and as you have probably gleaned, my academic focus was ancient history, but it came with a side of economics. Since high school I have been sceptical about modernity and the concept of leftist progress. I have never been attracted to mainstream views, but I joined the Australian Outer Party a few years ago, and every now and then I come across someone who thinks well. Most of my close associates are libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, or traditionalist constitutional monarchists who I have met through the Liberals. I have always preferred monarchy, and enjoyed the company of monarchists, but the libertarians were the ones who provided conversation and open minds, and so I tended to stick with them.

I have tried on a few mantles from the libertarian wardrobe, but none of them were a good fit. ‘Paleolibertarian’ is a still-born concept, but it came closest to an accurate descriptor. Anarcho-capitalist was also acceptable as an internal label, but I could never quite reconcile it with reality, and I never broadcast it. The biggest sticking point with libertarians is their bizarre, doctrinal belief in universalism with the open borders and ochlocracy that inevitably stems from it. Their complete inability to separate anarchy from democracy, and treat each situation differently confounds the otherwise hyper-rational minds I have met.

Fundamentally, I am a consequentialist. Moralising has little to no effect on me, which may be why the left have never had a hold over me. Incidentally, I’ve always considered susceptibility to moral arguments to be a sign of great intellectual weakness. It should also be pointed out that I am an atheist. I don’t look to Zeus or Shiva, or God. The supernatural simply isn’t a part of my world.

Then, resigned to another cycle of pissing around with libertarianism, I came across an article whinging about a neo-fascist movement for angry, smart, white men. Never one to believe hype, I began to read. And read and read in an obsessive way that I’m rarely struck by. This was not neo-fascism, the intellectual level was far above anything they have produced since they shaved their heads and their brains fell out. The people weren’t angry, they were disillusioned with modernity, democracy and ‘progress’. Just like I have always been. And so, I finally came across something that fitted well.

I hope not to be a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ to the Neoreactionaries’ party, and despite my many inadequacies, especially when compared to the exceptional work of others in the movement, I hope to be able to provide some value and insight.

As a form of oath to those who have come first, I daresay it is worth stating a somewhat modified version of the Neoreactionary Premise.

  1. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and needs to be done away with.
  2. People are not equal, and cannot be made so. I reject equality in both principle and practice.
  3. Right is right and left is wrong.
  4. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
  5. Traditional gender roles are basically a good idea
  6. Libertarianism ignores the reality of human nature and rejects the need for legitimate authority, and is thus untenable except as an economic foundation for a consequentialist Restored state.

[i] Forsythe, G., 2005, A Critical History of Early Rome, University of California Press, Berkley p.43


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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