Here’s Why I am Not:
The reactionary position exemplified by Mencius Moldbug is to support Ordnung über alles, and support the incumbent regimes as they represent order.
This is a mis-characterization of Moldbug’s position. The reactionary position – if I may be forgiven for speaking for reactionaries – is twofold: 1) that we should return to old school international law and 2) we should not blindly cheer violent revolution.
1) means that foreign governments would not intervene in each others affairs. As Moldbug says, the US will recognize the de facto government of other countries. The goal is not to support order but to get the US out of the revolution-exporting business, as Moldbug says, if he were in charge:
The United States no longer practices democratic imperialism. We have returned to our historic foreign policy of continental neutrality. We do not believe that political power is a "human right." We are not the "leader of the free world" – free nations need no "leader." We do not export revolution, we do not operate satellite states or amuse ourselves with puppets, and we deeply regret having played this game in the past.
2) means that instead of acting like the typical pundit, we will not cheer the fact that lots of civilians are about to be killed. When there is order, people aren’t being indiscriminately murdered for their religious beliefs. When there is revolution, people die. The reactionary does not cheer revolution despite the fact that "nobody in the west understands what the opposition stands for" and "the opposition is recruiting child soldiers which are simply reported as ‘recruits’ by the Economist."
At the end of his post, Why I am Not says he has no time for "ugly ideas" (alas, the truth is often ugly) like militarism. Nevertheless, everyone but the reactionary seems to support American intervention in the affairs of other nations in order to produce "democracy." If this be not militarism, what is?