The interesting neoreactionary website Social Matter conducted an in-depth interview with Radix’s own Michael McGregor and Gregory Hood on the subjects of Identitarianism, the Dark Enlightenment, and what separates our ideology from the growing NRx scene.

Here’s an excerpt where McGregor and Hood share their thoughts on neoreaction:

Hubert Collins: Everyday there seems to be more and more commentary on “neoreactionaries” (NRx), sometimes loosely called the “Dark Enlightenment.” However, I don’t think they’ve received much strong analysis from the perspective of someone more to the right and less mainstream than they are. In short, and as an Identitarian, what do you make of them?

Michael McGregor: I find neoreaction to be an interesting trend that reveals a lot about the disillusionment smart, young people have with the present System. Many people are starting to be fed up with the comfortable lies of liberalism and are looking for a political alternative outside of acceptable discourse. Many see the problems of today as stemming from the political structure of democracy that allows too much disorder and seems incapable of solving major problems. Ultimately, I see neoreaction as a good thing because it awakens some of the best and brightest of our society to the thought that there is something terribly wrong with the modern world. But I would also say that in many ways neoreaction amounts to what Sam Francis would call “the harmless persuasion” in that the majority of its ideas don’t really challenge the present order and serve as a distraction from more pressing issues. Time could very well prove me wrong on that assumption though.

Gregory Hood: I consider myself a part of it and have followed the rise of the Dark Enlightenment for some time. I’ve taken steps to be writing a lot more shortly and will be engaging with it more substantially soon. However, Identitarianism and Neo-Reaction are obviously not the same thing. What you have is a case of Vesica Piscis where there is overlap between some of these individuals; but it would be a mistake to conflate the two movements.
We’ll get into the differences in a bit, but as an overall tendency, I think it’s a good thing. I think they are raising questions that need to be raised, and I think that the more media attention they receive the better it is for everyone. That said, I think the European New Right already did a lot of the work that NRx is taking on today. The differences seems to be that it is possible to be in NRx and have a certain separation from racial or ethnic questions, whereas in the ENR it seems to be utterly central to the whole project.

The critical difference is that Identitarians can, at least theoretically, adopt some aspects of the modernist project. Nationalism (which is not the same as Identitarianism but there’s obviously some conflation) is a modernist project. The idea of ethnic homogeneity is modernist. The idea of culture being rooted (at least partially) in biology is modernist. Some would even call it reductionist or materialist, like what Julius Evola said of German racial science. Mass participation in politics, suspicion of organized religion and the Church, and impatience with monarchy can be found both in Identitarianism and in “far right” movements of the past, but I think most involved in NRx would be quite critical of it.

Read the rest of the interview here.