Monthly Archives: August 2015

Lightning Round – 2015/08/18

I’m taking a blogging break, so I won’t be reading blogs or posting here for the next couple weeks.

Also, for whoever asked me which of Canada and the US are more reactionary friendly: Canada is much more receptive to monarchy than the US, but beyond that it is much the same, although, in Canada, opposition is generally more subdued: you are less likely to have an online mob try to destroy your life. On the other hand, “hate” speech is punishable in Canada, so certain expressions of reaction may wind up in court.

Delta: Don’t put up with it.

The wake-up moment is total destruction.
Related: The American era is over.

Post-historical bias.
Related: Not post-industrial.

Why kill the GOP?
Related: Erickson, Will, Buckley, and conservative purging.
Related: #Cuckservative in the NYT.

This American Life are low-T shitlibs. More.

Another study proving sexual differences in psychology are real.

Don’t let a riot go to waste.

Obama, Trump, and housing discrimination.


Christian masculinity: against the Benedict Option.

Building the body of Christ.

Marriage made more vile.

A sixth Planned Parenthood video is out.

Some hard truths.

Roosh in Canada.
Related: John Tory: beta male.
Related: Can’t be beat Roosh.
Related: You can’t destroy the economy and then threaten people with expulsion from it.

The hunt for he good bad guy.

Conservative video-maker repeatedly harassed at border by Homeland Security.

Canadian media bias in action.

Scott Adams: living by the odds.

H/T: SDA, Isegoria,

Sexual Liberation

Behold sexual liberation in all it’s glory:

The tables are filled with young women and men who’ve been chasing money and deals on Wall Street all day, and now they’re out looking for hookups. Everyone is drinking, peering into their screens and swiping on the faces of strangers they may have sex with later that evening. Or not. “Ew, this guy has Dad bod,” a young woman says of a potential match, swiping left. Her friends smirk, not looking up.

Alienation so deep, they’re even alienated from their own hedonistic activities.

“Tinder sucks,” they say. But they don’t stop swiping.


“Brittany, Morgan, Amber,” Marty says, counting on his fingers. “Oh, and the Russian—Ukrainian?”

“Ukrainian,” Alex confirms. “She works at—” He says the name of a high-end art auction house. Asked what these women are like, he shrugs. “I could offer a résumé, but that’s about it … Works at J. Crew; senior at Parsons; junior at Pace; works in finance … ”

“We don’t know what the girls are like,” Marty says.

“And they don’t know us,” says Alex.

Mutual masturbation.

“It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option,” wrote Erica Gordon on the Gen Y Web site Elite Daily, in 2014.

Why would anyone pay top price for meat that is cheap and readily available?

Short-term mating strategies” seem to work for plenty of women too; some don’t want to be in committed relationships, either, particularly those in their 20s who are focusing on their education and launching careers.

The boilerplate feminist defence in an article where women do little but lament the hook-up culture.

“Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”

Women have the power to decide what enters their vagina. If they wanted to be relationship material they’d be relationship material, and find relationships.

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

Can it be called self-deception, when you know you’re deceiving yourself?

They tell me how, at their school, an adjunct instructor in philosophy, Kerry Cronin, teaches a freshman class in which an optional assignment is going out on an actual date. “And meet them sober and not when you’re both, like, blackout drunk,” says Jane. “Like, get to know someone before you start something with them. And I know that’s scary.”

Autistic alienation.

“And it reaches a point,” says Jane, “where, if you receive a text message” from a guy, “you forward the message to, like, seven different people: ‘What do I say back? Oh my God, he just texted me!’ It becomes a surprise. ‘He texted me!’ Which is really sad.”

“It is sad,” Amanda says. “That one A.M. text becomes ‘Oh my God, he texted me!’ No, he texted you at one A.M.—it’s meaningless.”

They laugh ruefully.

How fulfilling. How starved for affection can they be?

“It’s not, she says, that women don’t want to have sex. “Who doesn’t want to have sex? But it feels bad when they’re like, ‘See ya.’ ”

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says.

“It’s a contest to see who cares less, and guys win a lot at caring less,” Amanda says.

“It’s body first, personality second,” says Stephanie.

Why would a man care about the personality of his sex toy?

If you object to calling a girl a sex toy, why don’t you object to the girl treating herself like one?

“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.

That’s how society got in this mess in the first place.

“But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism,” says Amanda.

See here.

“I hooked up with three girls, thanks to the Internet, off of Tinder, in the course of four nights, and I spent a total of $80 on all three girls,” Nick relays proudly. He goes on to describe each date, one of which he says began with the young woman asking him on Tinder to “ ‘come over and smoke [weed] and watch a movie.’ I know what that means,” he says, grinning.

$80. Hookers make more and probably receive more affection.

They all say they don’t want to be in relationships. “I don’t want one,” says Nick. “I don’t want to have to deal with all that—stuff.”

“You can’t be selfish in a relationship,” Brian says. “It feels good just to do what I want.”

I ask them if it ever feels like they lack a deeper connection with someone.

There’s a small silence. After a moment, John says, “I think at some points it does.”

“But that’s assuming that that’s something that I want, which I don’t,” Nick says, a trifle annoyed. “Does that mean that my life is lacking something? I’m perfectly happy. I have a good time. I go to work—I’m busy. And when I’m not, I go out with my friends.”


He’s a womanizer, an especially callous one, as well as kind of a loser. The word has been around for at least a decade with different meanings; it’s only in about the last year that it has become so frequently used by women and girls to refer to their hookups.

“What percentage of boys now do you think are fuckboys?,” I asked some young women from New Albany, Indiana.

“One hundred percent,” said Meredith, 20, a sophomore at Bellarmine University in Louisville.

“No, like 90 percent,” said Ashley (the same as mentioned earlier). “I’m hoping to find the 10 percent somewhere. But every boy I’ve ever met is a fuckboy.”

How blindcan they be?

‘He drove me home in the morning.’ That’s a big deal,” said Rebecca, 21, a senior at the University of Delaware.


Bring all of this up to young men, however, and they scoff. Women are just as responsible for “the shit show that dating has become,” according to one. “Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”

Someone brings the truth.

Rebecca, the blonde with the canny eyes, also mentioned above, hooked up with someone, too. “It was O.K.” She shrugs. “Right after it was done, it was kind of like, mmmp … mmmp.” She gives a little grunt of disappointment.

Sounds fun.

“I’m on it nonstop, like nonstop, like 20 hours a day,” says Courtney, the one who looks like a 70s movie star.

“It’s, like, fun to get the messages,” Danielle says. “If someone ‘likes’ you, they think you’re attractive.”

“It’s a confidence booster,” says Jessica, 21, the one who looks like a Swedish tennis player.

Self-esteem addiction.

“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.”

They all laugh knowingly.

“I know how to give one to myself,” says Courtney.

“Yeah, but men don’t know what to do,” says Jessica, texting.

“Without [a vibrator] I can’t have one,” Courtney says. “It’s never happened” with a guy. “It’s a huge problem.”

“It is a problem,” Jessica concurs.

Sound like they’re enjoying it, no?

“I think men have a skewed view of the reality of sex through porn,” Jessica says, looking up from her phone. “Because sometimes I think porn sex is not always great—like pounding someone.” She makes a pounding motion with her hand, looking indignant.

“Yeah, it looks like it hurts,” Danielle says.

“Like porn sex,” says Jessica, “those women—that’s not, like, enjoyable, like having their hair pulled or being choked or slammed. I mean, whatever you’re into, but men just think”—bro voice—“ ‘I’m gonna fuck her,’ and sometimes that’s not great.”

“Yeah,” Danielle agrees. “Like last night I was having sex with this guy, and I’m a very submissive person—like, not aggressive at all—and this boy that came over last night, he was hurting me.”

They were quiet a moment.

And yet they all go along with it enthusiastically.

This article by itself is justification for patriarchy. These young women are addicted to attention. They are not enjoying themselves, they are neither respected nor loved, they are starved for affection, and they are willingly making themselves sex toys for men who don’t care in the least about them and enjoy hurting them. It is destroying their emotional core, but they can’t quit their addiction.

They need a stern father to drag them back home and force them to respect themselves.

The men are aimless and alienated. They need responsibility. Instead, they get untold free poon. Why do they need to care, when they can drown themselves in hedonism? They need the women’s fathers to to be cut off from empty masturbation with their breathing sex toys and be forced to contribute and care before hedonism can take them, so they can grow into men.

This is not healthy.

The 51st State

A conservakin implied I’m not cosnervative because I said single-payer health care is not the worst thing in the world.

So, I’m going to take a round about way to explain Canada and why single-payer is not good but not horrible, but why this might not necesasrily work for the US.

Contrary to what most believe English Canada is conservative, it always has been. The US has always been the liberal. When the US revolted against the British in order to install Puritan liberalism Canada was mostly French Catholic at the time and was wary of Puritan anti-Catholicism, so it refused to join the revolt and remained a British possession. The loyalists, Americans who opposed the revolution, moved to Canada because and formed the core of English Canada. At the very beginning, Canada was founded by conservatives who were opposed to the revoutionary liberalism of the Americans.

Almost a hundred years after the American Revolution, Canada became indpendent in 1867. The process was slow because of the inherent distrust fo the loyalists for republicanism and mob rule. Until 1931, the UK still had the power to legislate for Canada. It wasn’t until 1982 that Canada was allowed to modify its own constitution and introduced a Bill of Rights. The Queen is still the Head of State and technically legally owns Canada.

Until the late-70’s Canada was a liberal-conservative country, in the Burkean sense. It conserved its institutions, had a free-market, and reformed slowly. The Liberals were pro-free market, anti-government interventionism, and pro-responsible government. The Conservatives were aristocratic, in favour of noblesse oblige and organic community.

That changed in 60-70’s. During that time, Quebec had the quiet revolution, and its moved from traditional Catholic social doctrine to French socialism and an independence movement began. The Liberal Party under Pearson and Trudeau moved from classical liberalism to social liberalism and the New Democratic Party formed as a social-democratic party from an older farmer’s party.  In the Progressive Conservative Party the Blue Tory (neo-liberal) faction began to arise in the traditionally Red Tory (aristocratic). The Blue Tories continued to grow stronger and eventaully eliminated the Red Tories in 2003 with the creation of the Conservative Party.

Around this time, English Canada, or at least the populous and powerful southern Ontario region, adopted US puritan liberalism and combined it with Quebec’s French socialism to outholy the American puritans.

Also up until this time, Canada was an imperial dependency of Great Britain. The Suez Crisis in 1956 and the development of NORAD in 1958 marked when Canada began to move from Britain’s Sphere to the US’ Sphere. This process was completed in 1982, when Canada officially became its own country and informally became an imperial dependency of the US.

Since WW2, Canada has joined pretty much every American war except for Vietnam and Iraq. In Afghanistan, Canadian troops were literally airlifted over by the US. Our military has been consistently and severly underfunded, as we rely on the US to protect us. NORAD made us an integral part of the US continental defence system, while the NATO partnership basically made Canada’s military a semi-independent arm of the US military. The Canadian and Americans markets are integrated through NAFTA and over two-thirds of out exports are to the US, much of which are just raw materials. OUr cultural products are almost entirely American in origin (despite fairly useless Canadian content regulations).

Despite the nationalist left’s posturing (and yes that exists, and essentially it is ‘we hate America and love socialist health care’), or any practical purposes, Canada is essentially a somewhat indpendent 51st of the US, and the left are the one’s forcing American liberal culture on the US.

Despite having adopted the American revolutionary puritan spirit and trying to outrun the US in the holiness competition, this is not natural to English Canadians. Canadians are pragmatic converts to the faith, not natural zealots, like our American breathern.

This manifests in different ways.

First, Trudeau is the only real radical who has ever led Canada. He combined adopted English puritanism and French socialism to enlarge the state. Under him came a huge bloat in government. But beyond that, all our leaders have generally been moderate, non-radical liberals or conservatives. Change, while always moving left, has generally been small, sane, incremental increases rather than radical, half-baked changes.

Example in point, health care. Canada has single-payer, public health insurance, which is technically more socialist that Obamacare’s mandatory private insurance. But even in it’s Trudeaupian radicalness, the Public Health Act is a short, sane 14-page document that basically says provinces need to offer universal comprehensive public health insurance to receive federal health funding. It mostly followed the lead of what provinces were already establishing on their own and the actual implementation was left up to the provinces. On the other hand, Obamacare is a 900-page monstrosity detailing every last specific of dozens upon dozens of provisions and forces them upon the states, willing or not, and has had to be rewritten by the Supreme Court twice, just to be feasible.

This is generally the case. Canada creates short, sensible, incremental laws that leave the details and implementation up to professional bureaucrats or the provinces, while the US creates insane, bloated, radical laws that address everything related or unrelated in detail.

The second is race. Canada is divided by region: southern Ontario thinks it rules the rest of Canada, if it even deigns to notice we exist, the West resents the East, and Quebec hates everybody. These regional divides define Canadian politics, but because they are regional they mostly don’t matter in everyday life. Our conflict is a distant thing with those folks over there. While we have some minor racial troubles, particularly concerning Aboriginals, race is not that big a deal in Canada.

In the US race is everything. All conflict is essentially racial conflict and evevrything must address race. There are two large minority groups each making up about 12% or so of the population. It’s white republicans vs everybody else. So, there’s constant pressure to keep pushing the racial divides and keep the holiness competition moving. In Canada, our largest racial minorities are well-behaved East Asians and South Asians (each at about 5%) and some struggling aboriginals (~4%), who live largely on reserves anyways. So, while there’s some racial nonsense in universities, in the real world Canada, race doesn’t really matter. A few neighbourhoods might be bad, but nothing compared to US ghettos.

The third is bureaucracy. Canada’s bureaucracy, while having all the problems a normal bureaucracy has, is a professional bureaucracy made up of competent people. Most civil servants have to undergo some form of testing when entering the civil service and it is seen as a public service to enter the bureaucracy. The politicians mostly leave the bureaucrats alone. This ensures that the Canadian bureaucracy is generally functional if inefficient.

On the other hand, the US bureaucracy operates on a spoils system and is essentially seen as an opportunity to plunder. The politicians appoint the bureaucrats for political reasons rather than professionalism and race issues eliminated testing for competency. So, the bureaucracy is dysfunctional looting rather than simple inefficiency.

Fourth immigration. Immigration in Canada is generally done on a merit basis. Other than a small number of refugees, the people allowed in are either competent job seekers or the families of said job seekers and immigration is generally spread out among varying countries. Illegal immigration is a relatively minor problem. In the US immigration is based on a lottery, Mexicans are the thoroughly dominant immigrants, and illegal immigration is a major problem. Canada does not share America’s fling the borders open attitude.

Finally, Canadian politicians rationally attempt to fix problems, even the liberals are sane in this regard. For example, in the 90’s Canada experienced a debt crisis. The ruling Liberal Party made large cuts to public and introduced some new taxes and eliminated the deficit and tamed the debt in a few years. Since then, the federal budgets have been more or less balanced and the debt growing but stabilized. Meanwhile, US politicians continue to ignore their debt and deficit and continue to ramp up spending without being able to pay for it.

So, while Canada has adopted socialism, it is not the wild-eyed fanatical puritanism of the US, but rather a pragmatic socialism. Even there though the US and Canada’s level of socialism is not that much different. While Canada’s tax levels are 10 percentage points higher, the US actually now has slightly higher government spending levels than Canada because the US funds its spending with debt rather than taxation.

So, now back to the original point. In Canada, single-payer health care is not the worst thing in the world. It’s probably less efficient than a fully free market one would be and tax levels are somewhat higher because of it, but in terms of health care, it not really that bad for most people. A few people have longer wait times for ‘elective’ surgeries, family doctors can be difficult to find in some place, and there’s the rare person who gets overlooked in the emergency room, but mostly it works fine. While the comparative effectiveness of the US and Canadian systems has been debated endlessly, essentially health outcomes are not really all that different once you account for race and obesity, and the Canadian system is cheaper overall.

The question is, though, if this could actually be applied to the US. The Canadian single-payer system more-or-less works because the government is basically functional. The US bureaucracy is basically dysfunctional. Look at Obamacare, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of a theoretical mandatory subsidized health insurance system, the actual applied system is one giant unworkable clusterfuck. I find it highly unlikely that the US would adopt a sane approach to a single-payer system.

Would the US federal government ever be able to create a simple 14-page law that says the states only get federal health funding if they provide comprehensive public insurance? Doubtful. Even if by some miracle they did, there is no way it would be competently and professionally run.

Lightning Round – 2015/08/11

I was linked to by Cosmo. Who at Cosmo would read my blog?

Get to work.
Related: Delta perspective: Don’t interrupt.

A detailed guide to finding a Christian wife.

The need for thede.

The destruction of civil society by the left.
Related: Mass immigration as a weapon.

When will we know?

A Chinese art magazine notices neoreaction.
Related: HuffPo Nrx?

The roots of modernity in perversions of Christianity.

Robert Conquest has died.

Why the pols hate Trump.
Related: How the GOP created Trump.
Related: Trump the alpha. More. Related.
Related: RedState cuckery. More.
Related: Cuckservative speech police.
Related: Crying wolf.
Related: A song for Trump.
Related: Trump’s third party threat value.

Nixon post-debate.
Related: The ideal 2016 candidate.

Why #cuckservative is effective.

Gavin McInnes and cuckservatism.
Related: A note for Gavin McInnes.

A catalogue of lies and pro-constitutionalism.

The absurdity of America’s devotion to Israel.

Genes influence academic ability across all subjects.

Musical dysmorphic disorder.

Free market force.

Ecumenism and tribal Catholicism. More on tribal Christianity.

US State Department tries to prevent Christian testimony about persecution.

Intact fetal cadavers.
Related: 95% of women feel good about murdering their babies.
Related: Planned Parenthood video number 5.

Marriage and family illustrated.

Feminine grace.

Post-divorce reality.

Let women save themselves.

Male sexuality.


Women, math, and the Y chromosome.
Related: Women aren’t in STEM because they don’t know math.
Related: Memes and sex.

Teach your kids about oneitis and the wall.

The terrorist organization known as Gawker.

List of SJW thought police.

Book review: Chronicles of Wasted Time.

Antidem reviews Wright’s dinosaur revenge fiction story.

Sailer reviews Colin Quinn’s book.

The no jerk reaction.

Green Peace founder comes out against global warming.

Videos of Bernie Sanders being shouted off stage. Related.

H/T: Land, SDA, Isegoria, NBS

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.

A Response to harharkh

This criticism of neoreaction seems to have been getting some play, so I’ll address it.

Unfortunately, the most well-known face of reaction on social media in 2015 is Neoreaction. Neoreaction has failed to obtain any wealthy patrons or even well-known proponents.

First, he is unaware of what is occurring behind the scenes, understandable that he is not behind the scenes. While I’m not privy to the specifics (need to know and all that), I’m privy enough to know that things are happening in this direction.

Neoreaction’s self-proclaimed leaders have in the past been prone to public meltdowns and fits of hubris; in response to that tendency NRx has now retreated into a hermetically sealed inner circle which brooks no discussion with those who are critical.

A self-proclaimed leader who has been blacklisted. As for the latter half, I’m adding some discussion right here.

Second, for an article criticizing NRx’s failure, to announce that it is the most well-known face of reaction in but a couple years of work seems to be counterproductive, c’est non?

As dedicated perennialist reactionaries, we at Spiritual Sun have spent a great deal of time critiquing Neoreaction through our twitter accounts.

Do I need to point out the irony of bragging about Twitter critiques while criticizing NRx for it’s lack of accomplishment?

Much to the delight and contempt of some we are not going to provide citations of past examples of each of these errors. Those who are objective will see the truth of our critique; those who are true believers will perceive it as hostility. If, in the future, we see examples of the below-listed errors we may cite them in an addendum. If sympathetic fellow reactionaries who can see that Neoreaction is actually anti-reactionary wish to post examples in the comments we may add them to the addendum as well.

We present no proof because we don’t need proof, but if you have proof, we desperately need it.”

it is amazing what a man can accomplish what he expects no credit.

Holiness competitions are unseemly.

From here I’ll address each section on its own.

Tech Culture

The criticism here is two-fold:

1) Because tech culture is not right-wing… and the ‘argument’ leaves it at that. It is not actually an argument, merely semantic association.

2) The second argument is that creating governance architecture is not the same as being a leader within said architecture, a point so blindingly obvious that anybody you’d actually need to point it out to is not someone who should be discussing politics. Of course, NRx is aware of such an obvious point.

But this seems to be a common “criticism”, so I’ll address it: nobody in NRx thinks they’re going to be the leader come the restoration. We don’t think we’ll be made lords by the new king, or aristocratic shareholders by the SovCorp. We’re just trying to point out the flaws of our current system and work out a livable, human system and possible ways to implement it.

Nobody seems to notice that hypercapitalism is arguably already the lay of the land and coexists just fine with Progressivism, often even feeding it.

Define capitalism. Nothing in our modern society of 50% tax rates and massive welfare states would resemble anything a neoreactionary would recognize as capitalism.

Survival as Telos

An embrace of Social Darwinism creates the exact environment in which people are trying to seize the reins of power, which is antithetical to the aim of a harmonious, organic civilization. Social Darwinism is also scientifically illiterate. Natural selection does not result in an ecosystem in which one or a few species totally dominate the others, but rather in a complex hierarchy (the so-called food chain) in which millions of species fill specific survival niches.

I’m not going to bother refuting something that refutes itself within 3 sentences. The argument is literally: social darwinism is wrong because it destroys natural hierarchy, it is also wrong because darwinism creates natural hierarchy. Social darwinism is darwinism on society. What the latter does for organisms, the former does for humans.

Culture of Critique

NRx has very much fallen into this mode of operation: a bunch of people in an out-group who have banded together based on their hatred of the in-group. A common mode is giant gossip sessions where people reward each other for critiquing the in-group, but when it comes to coming up with anything constructive they have very little to say. When you strip it down and start looking at their positive suggestions it becomes as vague and utopian and anything they criticize. Notions like SovoCorp, exit strategies, and AI resemble speculative fiction more than workable political philosophy.

Remember the first paragraph of this little attack: “What would a small measure of success look like for contemporary reaction? Certainly political power is out of the question for now. The formation of some kind of model community in a rural location may be possible eventually, but for now a critical mass of committed people seems to be lacking. The same goes for the formation of local organizations to fill in the gaps in services left by a failing government. This seems to be the time to work out solid ideas and gather human material – to convince those who are disillusioned or disgusted with progressivism and globalism that there is a set of principles to guide them and a community of which to be a part.

The assertions of the piece are simultaneously:

NRx has had three years of thinking and they haven’t solved society’s problems.
They do nothing nothing but critique and propose no solutions. (From the people who brag about their Twitter critiques)
We don’t like their half-dozen proposed solutions because they’re not workable right now.
There are no immediately workable solutions.
NRx is to be condemned because they have not found immediately workable solutions.

Those assertions are obviously self-refuting.

NRx is so disjointed that you have people on one end who can make themselves seem respectable enough to become guides to the people in power as we move into the next phase; on the other end you have people who want to burn it all down and go back to a semi-tribal society.

NRx is both disjointed and “has now retreated into a hermetically sealed inner circle which brooks no discussion with those who are critical.” You can’t have it both ways. Either NRx is in ideological lockstep or it is not. Do we brook no disagreement or are we all a bunch of renegade crazies who agree on nothing?

No Constituency

NRx has a constituency: disaffected brahmins and intelligent vaisyas. At this point we don’t need numbers, the Frankfurt School never did, we need influence. Numbers follow influence.

Also, neoreaction does not despise nationalism. Almost everyone in it is a nationalist of some sort and degree (except maybe Land). We despise stupid nationalism and ineffective nationalism, but the emphasis is on the adjectives not the noun.

Finally, neoreaction does not look down on proles. I’m of prole stock myself and have never taken even the tiniest amount of shit for it. NRx is pro-vaisya and always has been. (We do disdain lumpenprols though, but lumpenprols are worthy of disdain).

No Sacrifice

Consider Nick Land, AntiDem, Nick Steves – they’re not willing to step into obscurity for the cause of the counterrevolution.

These anonymous people using obvious pseudonyms and working on an arcane political ideology in their free time are unwilling to step into obscurity.”

As for the rest, we have a developing hierarchy (just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist), or as much a one as geographically distant collection of internet-connected strangers can have.

Also, as I stated above, nobody in NRx expects to be king. Why does everybody keep projecting this on us?

As well, there’s more holiness signalling here, which remains unseemly.

No Dialectic

This is a whole lot of words saying nothing more than ‘they don’t argue in the specific way I want them to argue’ and ‘they’re egotistical’, with no proof given of either assertion.

Who are “the Elites”?

The power elites can be roughly grouped into five main types; financial, industrial, governmental (bureaucratic), military, and the educational-media complex (the Cathedral). NRx analysis has focussed almost exclusively on the last category,

(Definitional note: The Cathedral also include the bureaucracy. I will also note, I’ve made a strong attack on both usury and inflation).

Why would we not focus on the Cathedral. it is the educational-media complex and the bureaucracy that gives industry and finance their marching orders: the Cathedral is what is propping up and directing the evils of the other two. Why go for the leaves, when you can attack the root?

Apocalyptic Mentality

In the mind of a Neoreactionary, progressivism is unsustainable a therefore it must fail. We as reactionaries hope it will fail as well, but don’t necessarily see this outcome as inevitable.

That is true. It is also tautological. If something is unsustainable, it eventually fails, that’s what unsustainable means.

This is cyclical history. Growth, decline, replacement. NRx strongly holds to cyclical history. Cyclical history is necessarily determinative.

This section criticizes neoreaction for holding to the inevitability of the historical cycle calling it an apocalyptic mentality, then argues that we need to be active and create the end of history, calling it cyclical history.

Lack of Metaphysical Foundation

Remember, when twice previously NRx was criticized for being ideologically closed, and was also criticized for being disjointed. We come back around to being disjointed again. Here he also attacks NRx for doing the popular thing, when just a while back he was attacking NRx for not being populist (ie. not having a constituency).

But as to his critique. It’s true that members of NRx do not share the same metaphysical foundation, we have rationalists, Catholics, darwinists, nationalists, protestants, and atheists. But how is this a criticism? Do all reactionaries have to be Traditionalist Catholics practicing the Tridentine Rites? Is harharkh?

Also, it does not logically flow that because we don’t have the same pre-suppositions, our individual philosophies can’t convergently develop analogous critiques and goals.


As the Hestia Society slogan goes, “The only morality is civilization.” NRx’s morality is civilization.

Different peoples are different, and should be able to pursue their own people’s ends. Why should a Chinaman, a Spaniard, an Englishman, and an African have the same civilization? What kind of civilization could, all at once, suit the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, and the Hindu?

It’s insane to try to force the same purpose on such disparate groups.

Even as a Christian who believes in one God, one faith, one baptism, absolute morality, and a universal Church, I wouldn’t dream of forcing the same accidents of Christianity on a Japanese Christian and a French Christian.

To equate organic, particular civilization with consumer culture is absurd.

Lightning Round – 2015/08/05

Preparing for the storm.
Related: Some tips for frugality.

Don’t put up with disrespect from your wife/girlfriend.
Related: On discussing sex and virginity with a potential spouse.

The Legionnaire is leaving.

NRx: Areas of research interest.
Related: Passivism.

The cuckservative civil war.
Related: The alt-right.
Related: Disrupting cuckservatism.
Related: Trump as a model white man.
Related: Nazis and cuskervative.
Related: The etymology of cuckservative.
Related: Chuck C Johnson on cuckservatism.
Related: For whom the cuckservative cucks.
Related: Matt Lewis, cuckservative, who’s emboldening the left.
Related: A call to the cuckservative.
Related: Why the Republicans exist.
Related: Dear cuckservative, you won’t win the Latino vote.

Only white males are seen to possess full moral agency.
Related: The first rule of white club.

The structure and genius of ISIS.

Tribal epistemology.

Declining trust.

How we’ve changed.

How to stop mass illegal immigration.

Why the Scandinavians lost their minds.

RIP Hulkamania.

The coming low paganism.
Related: The anti-racist religion.

Mutations in national pluralism.

How cultural marxism is set to ruin GitHub.

The theory of conspiracy.
Related: Conspiracy in action: the Milner Group.

Hoppe on the king.

Some speeches by Henry Wallace.

Do Christians need to learn to hate?

Liberal Christianity must be destroyed.

The minimal usefulness of IVF.

Women, the original entryists. More.

There is no double-standard.

Alphas are bullies.

Another Planned Parenthood baby-organ harvesting video.
Related: Fourth Planned Parenthood video.

Conservatives missed opportunity on #GG.

Rent control in Sweden.

The global warming hoax. Related.
Related: The list of things caused by global warming.

The evolution of profanity.

Clarkhat debates Vox on Ricardo.

The Rabid Puppies goal.


H/T: Land,