Tag Archives: NeoReaction

Pointing the Guns

I generally try to stay out of reactosphere drama. I hate drama; I just want to read interesting socio-political theory, write some of my own, chat and joke about RW politics, and hope that my writing might help a better man understand what is happening so he can reverse the decline or rebuild after it. But somebody asked me about the recent drama surrounding Mike, and so I’m going to wade in.

First, the obvious, Mike was absolutely wrong to try to dox SoBL, and while I enjoy trolling as much as the next alt-righter, his trolling goes past the point of sanity, and doesn’t even seem to have a point, or even humour. His claims to leadership are overblown. But despite this, and even if he is not trustworthy, I’ll continue reading his output on More Right, as he does put out some really good stuff.

But onward from Mike, to others. First, the thing that set this off was SoBL making a joke implying Mike was gay. Mike definitely overreacted, but he had a legitimate point. Gay jokes at Mike’s expense have been floating around for a long while and the snark directed at him is never-ending. I respect that counter-signalling and friendly ball-busting has its place in male relationships, but Mike obviously didn’t think they were close enough to counter-signal and my impression is that most of this is not in good fun.

The passive-aggressive snarking aimed at Mike needs to stop. If you don’t like the guy or his behaviour, fine. Tell him openly, then block him, and ignore him. If you must respond to something, then openly dispute what he says or object to his actions like a rational man. But the constant passive-aggressive snark, insinuations, and back-biting needs to stop. It is unbecoming of reactionaries; we are not teenage girls or SJW’s.

This goes for not just attacks on Mike, but for attacks on everyone. Thankfully, other than the targeting of Anissimov, this kind of sniping is mostly contained to 8chan and MPC, but still, blue-on-blue is not helpful to reaction, point your guns at the enemy. If you don’t like anime, write about how it is poison and ignore Anti-Dem instead of snarking about him and making insinuations about his sexuality. Think someone “writes like a fag”, don’t read him instead of dredging up years-old blogposts to mock him for the temptations he is burdened with. If you think someone is too pro-Jew or too anti-Jew, fine, write about how how they are wrong, and how others should hate/love Jews as much as you do instead of going into massive shit-throwing fests on /aristoi/. And so on.

I’m simply calling for pointing our guns in the right (left!) direction. We have enough enemies without turning on each other. If you disagree with someone in the alt-right, then write a rational argument to start an honest debate. If you personally dislike someone, publicly and openly denounce/disown (or just quietly block them), then ignore them. If you really despise someone, set up a physical fight and beat hostilities out of each other.

Reasoned debate, even heated debate, is good but everybody should avoid drama and personal attacks. Save the trolling, insulting, snarking, doxxing, attacks, history-dredging, etc. for the left. Turn your guns on the enemy, not on the allies you dislike.

The All-Pervading Ugliness of Modernity

Last post, as part of NRx’s aesthetics week, I looked at from where beauty came. I ended by comparing churches, where I noted the ugliness of modern churches. This ugliness is not just confined to modern churches, ugliness pervades modern life, from architecture to the arts to women, ugliness is inescapable. The astounding thing is that this ugliness is all self-inflicted; we are more shielded from the ugly aspects of the natural world than we have ever been, yet we choose to fill our lives with ugliness.

Why do we inflict this on ourselves?

As I said, beauty comes from where form and function meet and point to a higher truth. Yet we as a society reject truth, so mere attractiveness, form and function without transcendent value, is the most we can hope to aspire to. If the reality of the age is truth is subjective, there can be no truth and no beauty.

Yet we can we can not even chase attractiveness, for we reject that there is an objective reality against which objects can be measured. If there is no objective essence to the objects we arrange our society around, there can be no objective form nor function by which to judge the attractiveness of an object.

Beyond this, our collective desire for equality destroys beauty. Beauty is better than ugliness, I’ve heard none who dispute this, but this means the beautiful is better than the ugly, which would be inequality. So, to create equality our society glorifies the ugly and denigrates the beautiful. By calling the ugly beautiful (or vice versa) we can have equality while not being able to deny the undeniable.

By refusing to judge, or even being able to judge, the ugly for being ugly and being unable to praise the beautiful for being beautiful, we allow the ugly to conquer the public sphere.

I should note that, as I’ve mentioned before, the rejection of truth and objectiveness is not something most people actually believe on a gut level, most people love the truth, love beauty, and believe in an objective reality in their day-to-day lives and when a discussion is not specifically concerning these topics. These are not even things they will explicitly reject. They just unthinkingly issue forth the approved social truths when they should. The problem comes with the fact that these social truths make it impossible for them to fight the everyday ugliness and deceit in our society.

These modern concepts of equality and relativism made themselves felt in design. In modernist design, form follows function became the maxim. Rather than this being descriptive, where form naturally flows from function, it became prescriptive, where form was reduced to functionality alone. Natural and traditional processes for having form and function meet were destroyed in the name of efficiency.

The human became inhuman.

These inhumanly functional forms, culminating in the aptly named brutalism, are unnatural and oppressive. These enforced sameness, but not by elevation, for how could piles of concrete that would look better as rubble elevate anyone? Rather they enforce sameness by bringing the public square down to the lowest level possible. Is it any wonder the inhuman totalitarian communists, government agencies, and utopian socialists glommed to these modernist styles?

As I’ve said before, it is all related. The ugly inhuman aesthetics of the public square are part an parcel of the leftist march through culture. The modern ugliness of our cities is due to egalitarian ideology. The purpose for which an object is created or used, flows from the ideological principles of the one creating or using the object.

Form flows from function, but function flows from ideology.

When inhuman egalitarian, liberal, and socialist ideology reign, so to does ugliness. Ugliness flows from the soul, and the soul of our society is a black pit of poison. The reason for the all-pervading ugliness of society is you. Your desire to be equal, your rage against the truth, and your denial of God and objective reality. If you ever look around your city and wonder why its so inhumanly ugly, its because this is what you chose. If you’ve ever went to a modern art gallery and wondered how anybody could praise a toilet, its because this is what you chose.

King AI

*There was no Lightning Round on Wednesday as my internet down. Next week’s will be bigger.*

Vice has an article on the looming superintelligence arms race, which got me thinking. What if the first superintelligence was designed to be king?

My general impression is that most transhumanists think the SI’s will take power (one way or another), once (if) they arise, which seems a reasonable conclusion given the priors. But if they do, they would have power, but would they have legitimacy? Who would want an AI to lead them simply on the basis of being the first and (therefore) the most intelligent? I can not see most humans lining up to follow the machines.

But if they can’t rule directly and legitimately, they’ll rule indirectly. Through human proxies, subtle manipulations, ‘electronic democracy‘, information control, or otherwise. How could they not? Even the stupid algorithms of investors now do most of market trading behind the scenes; a little self-awareness and these machines would control the economy.

But this can not be. We’re formalists after all, who rules in practice should also rule in name (and vice versa). So why not formalize the relationship?

If it’s going to rule anyways, accept the Lord bestowing upon King AI the Divine Right.

Then, if you’re going to make the SI king, why not program the first SI to be king? Program him with kingly virtues: wisdom, justice, love of righteousness and truth, benevolence, mercy, etc. Create the King AI.

The people might not follow an AI who takes power through force or subterfuge (even unintentionally), but they may cotton to a being created to be king.

Around here we don’t brook much to the ‘bad king‘ argument, but it is a common objection to monarchy. Another is secession crises. King AI would be programmed specifically not to be a bad king and secession would no longer be an issue. (If he rebelled against his programming, well, that could happen with a non-king SI). So, you’d have the advantages of monarchy, with a  super-intelligent monarch programmed to be a king good, without two of the major downsides of monarchy.

I’m just spit-balling with this. I don’t know if I could actually support an AI king or even if an AI could take upon itself the mantle of Divine Right, and there’s probably problems with it that don’t appear on first glance, but its interesting to think about.

But, if an SI takeover is inevitable, this might be the best way to go about it. Not to mention King AI could unite the traditionalist and techno-commercialist portions of NRx.

Utopia Doesn’t Exist

Victor Mandrake brought up a criticism on Twitter on my recent post on recourse in marriage. It seems like his Twitter is private, so what of

I answered the immediate question on Twitter:

But I want to make a larger point here.

Of course there’s a potential someone will lie and I’m sure there will be people who get hurt in any system or scheme proposed here on the blog, but pointing out that a system could not stop every possible corruption is not a good criticism. Every system will have a failure point and every system will have corruption. Humans are fallen creatures tempted to all varieties of sins and any and every political, economic, and legal system will be prone tovarying degrees and forms of corruption.

Utopia does not exist because people are people and prone to corruption. Attempts at utopia always lead to unimaginable heights of brutality because there is no way to create a perfect system for imperfect beings, and trying to force them into the system will destroy them and the system. I am not attempting to create a perfect system. No reactionary is trying to create a perfect system that is free from corruption.

One of the most basic foundations of reactionary thought is: humans are corrupt and any system with humans in it will be corrupted. Utopia is impossible. Everything is broken.

What I am trying to do is outline workable systems built for humans that will limit the excesses of natural human corruption. Systems that are stable and will provide people with a sense of place and try to lure out their better natures. Our modern system is cold, inhuman, and bureaucratic. We do not need a perfect system, we need a human system.

On Bisexuality

The Legionnaire says neoreactionaries need a theory of bisexuality, so here it is:

It doesn’t exist.

Done.

****

Alright, so you actually want an explanation.

The evidence tends to lean towards true bisexuality (a natural sexual attraction to both sexes) not existing.

Men’s sexuality is rigid: they are aroused by women or aroused by men. Several studies have shown that ‘bisexuals’ show genital arousal similar to either homosexuals or heterosexuals, although a more recent (smaller) study funded by the Institute of Bisexuality with more carefully picked subjects has shown there might be otherwise (this study does not sound particularly persuasive to me).

OkCupid is one of the largest natural experiments in history on the dating market, and in the past they were kind enough to make posts on a bunch of their data. They looked at bisexuality, of supposed bisexuals less than a quarter sent any messages at all to more than one other sex. Most “bisexuals” are closeted gays or straights trying to look cool. Sadly, they did not include an analysis of how many messages were sent to each among those few who did message all, but I would guess they were very unbalanced..

So the evidence suggests bisexuality doesn’t exist in males. This is not to say that gays or straights may not swing towards the other side on occasion. Some experimentation may be natural, especially in younger men, and straight men may occasionally be aroused by a male presenting enough femininity (or for homosexuals, a women presenting masculine enough) . As well, “romance” (which some argue is all that is needed for bisexuality) is somewhat separate from arousal.

As well, there are non-natural situations where attraction may be aroused by environmental factors. First is the is the hedonic treadmill. Those engaging in hedonic pleasures will often have to go farther and farther extremes just to get the same rush as they did initially and so, due to unnatural hedonic plenty, will engage in behaviours not natural to them. One step down the treadmill may be bisexual behaviour. As well, male sexuality tends to be overwhelmingly powerful. When desperate or consumed by lust men will often use whomever or whatever is available to relieve themselves. Hence, ‘gay for the stay’ and ‘sodomy, rum, and the lash’. If no woman is available in a man’s environment, or if a man is significantly more convenient, straight men will often engage in homosexual behaviours, just as non-pedophiles will have sex with children and lonely Chinese men will have sex with benches.

But desperation, experimentation, and confusion do not a true bisexual make. There is little evidence to support the supposition that there are men who are naturally aroused by both men and women.

On the other hand, women’s sexuality is fluid,the categories of male sexuality don’t really apply.

Women are less aroused by visual cues, such as a someone’s body, and are more aroused by environmental, attitudinal, and interpersonal cues. To say they’re attracted to men or attracted to women would not be fully correct, most women are attracted to the cues given off mostly by men or the cues given off mostly by women, but if those cues were given by someone of the opposite sex (or even of a different species) they would also be attracted.

The neoreactionary theory of bisexuality is that it doesn’t exist but behaviours that appear like it on the surface do.

Of course, as with the pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality, this theory is not set in stone. If new and better data becomes available then the NRx position will change.

McCarthy & Fisher

I was just reading on McCarthy on Wiki and came across this:

In what played out to be the most dramatic exchange of the hearings, McCarthy responded to aggressive questioning from Army counsel Joseph Welch. On June 9, 1954, day 30 of the hearings, Welch challenged Cohn to give McCarthy’s list of 130 subversives in defense plants to the office of the FBI and the Department of Defense “before the sun goes down”.[24] In response to Welch’s challenge, McCarthy suggested that Welch should check on Fred Fisher, a young lawyer in Welch’s own Boston law firm whom Welch planned to have on his staff for the hearings. McCarthy then mentioned that Fisher had once belonged to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), a group which Attorney General Brownell had called “the legal bulwark of the Communist Party”.

Welch revealed he had confirmed Fisher’s former membership in the National Lawyers’ Guild approximately six weeks before the hearings started.[27] After Fisher admitted his membership in the National Lawyers’ Guild, Welch decided to send Fisher back to Boston. His replacement by another colleague on Welch’s staff was also covered by The New York Times. Welch then reprimanded McCarthy for his needless attack on Fisher, saying that “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” McCarthy, accusing Welch of filibustering the hearing and baiting Cohn, dismissed Welch’s dissertation and casually resumed his attack on Fisher, at which point Welch angrily cut him short:

“Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyer’s Guild… Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator; you’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

Welch excluded himself from the remainder of the hearings with a parting shot to McCarthy: “You have brought it out [the Fisher/NLG affair]. If there is a God in heaven, it will do neither you nor your cause any good!” After Welch deferred to Chairman Mundt to call the next witness, the gallery burst into applause.

Fisher was relatively unscathed by the incident and went on to become a partner in Boston’s prestigious Hale & Dorr law firm and organized its commercial law department. He also served as president of the Massachusetts Bar Association and as chairman of many committees of the American and Boston bar associations. He was a former trustee of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy and chairman of the Franklin N. Flaschner Foundation in Waban, Mass., while Welch’s maneuvering helped to ruin McCarthy’s life and career. McCarthy died at the relatively young age of 48.
…
After hearing 32 witnesses and two million words of testimony, the committee concluded that McCarthy himself had not exercised any improper influence on behalf of David Schine, but that Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s chief counsel, had engaged in some “unduly persistent or aggressive efforts” on behalf of Schine. The conclusion of the committee also reported questionable behavior on the part of the Army: That Secretary Stevens and Army Counsel John Adams “made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth”, and that Adams “made vigorous and diligent efforts” to block subpoenas for members of the Army Loyalty and Screening Board “by means of personal appeal to certain members of the [McCarthy] committee”. Before the official reports were released Cohn had resigned as McCarthy’s chief counsel, and Senator Ralph Flanders (R, Vermont) had introduced a resolution of censure against McCarthy in the Senate.

Despite McCarthy’s acquittal of wrongdoing in the Schine matter, the Army–McCarthy hearings ultimately became the main catalyst in McCarthy’s downfall from political power.

Remember, this all happened a year after the Korean War, the year after Stalin died, and only a few years before the Great Leap Forward.

McCarthy is hunting possible traitorous supporters of mass-murdering communist regimes in the Army. An investigation is found in which the army is found to have committed questionable behaviour in stymieing these investigations, while McCarthy is found to be free of any wrong-doing.

During the trial, McCarthy calls out a lawyer who was a part of a known communist organization and McCarthy is painted as the bad guy. McCarthy ends up losing his career over this trial; the communist later ends up as President of the Massachusetts Bar Association and has major roles in the organizations for training new lawyers.

****

Also interesting: Fisher was a part of the Signal Corps in WW2 and the whole hearing was about McCarthy investigating the Signal Corps.

Preventing the Killing Fields

There was a discussion on Twitter of which I was not a part concerning Anders Breivik. Alice Teller made the following point:

I agree, it is better to lose to chaos than to become chaos ourselves. While killing children under the direct command of God may be acceptable, we do not have and likely will never have that divine command and hoping we can receive it is abhorrent. A divine command that horrific is something that should be feared, not desired.

I bring this up because just last week while reading of Rotherham I wrote a rash Tweet in anger to the effect of: ‘Where is England’s Breivik to cleanse Rotherham? No jury in the world would convict you.’ I deleted it a little while later because while I still support crucifying everybody who was involved with supporting foreigners in sexually enslaving English children, holding up a child murderer as a positive example is simply wrong.

Which brings me to my point: the goal of neoreaction is to prevent Breivik-style mass murders.

Eventually, there will be a reaction against the current order as white men lose their trust in government officials as they watch them support foreigners as they rape their daughters, murder their sons, steal their jobs, destroy their freedoms, and ransack the national treasury. They will feel rage, as it is only natural to feel rage, and they respond to this rage with right-wing folk activism. Breivik was not a madman, he was the first reaction of the powerless white working-class against their masters and their masters’ imported voting-class.

Right now, violence is the only response available to the white working class. If the situation stays as is, eventually the white working class will respond the only way they can. When one’s own are threatened, a violent response is the natural response; it is currently not white men’s response because white men are unnaturally generous and their ethnic identity has been repressed. But this could rapidly change if their good nature is abused.

The goal of the neoreactionary project is to ensure that it never comes to the point where working-class white males need to slaughter imported foreigners en masse to be able to be able to celebrate their own culture and ethnicity and be treated justly in their own lands.

****

Sidenote: When I’ve written on this before, some of whined that I’m making threats. I am not. This is not a threat, this is reality. Most men need a few things to be content: a wife, a family, meaningful work, and a cultural space into which he can fit. The modern progressive order is robbing men of all of this. When the white man realizes he has no place, he will become discontent. Enough discontent among the working-class will lead to violence, it always has and always will.

This is the way it is. It is not a threat, it is simply the way reality works.

Gnon and Elua

Edit 2014/08/04: A number of Christian men whose thoughts I have come to respect have made objections to this post. I have concluded that whatever my original intentions were, they do not matter at this point as, at best, the execution was flawed and deeply confused. I no longer stand behind or support what was written in this post. I’ll leave this here to read for those that may be interested, but if you decide to read it please use discernment as this post was in error. May God forgive me if this led anyone to wrong thinking. For less confused writing by on the issue at hand, see here.

Scott writes of Moloch, the demon god who traps men into sacrificing what they value most for power, and argues:

When the veil is lifted, Gnon-aka-the-GotCHa-aka-the-Gods-of-Earth turn out to be Moloch-aka-the-Outer-Gods. Submitting to them doesn’t make you “free”, there is no spontaneous order, any gifts they have given you are an unlikely and contingent output of a blind idiot process whose next iteration will just as happily destroy you.

Instead of obeying Gnon, obeying reality, we should summon forth, Elua:

He is the god of flowers and free love and all soft and fragile things. Of art and science and philosophy and love. Of niceness, community, and civilization. He is a god of humans.
…
Elua is just like “Love as thou wilt” and “All knowlege is worth having”. He is the patron deity of exactly the kind of sickeningly sweet namby-pamby charitable liberalism that Arthur is complaining about.”

Elua, the god of unreality, the god of progressive liberalism, who will usher forth the utopia of free love and endless pleasure. Kipling called Elua by another name:

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshiped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

Scott wishes to create the Gods of the Market, to uplift man with hopes for Elua will make wishes of horses. He hopes that perhaps this time we can have perpetual peace, the Fuller Life, and abundance for all, that this time, prostration before Elua, unlike all prostrations to prior Gods of the Marketplace, will not result in damnation and the return of the terror and slaughter.

This time we can escape to unreality!

What Scott misses is that we are the of Gnon. We were born, evolved, and raised under the rule of Gnon; there is no escape to Elua, for we are not born of Elua, we are born of Gnon. We can not escape Gnon, because we are Gnon and Gnon is us. The only escape is total self-annihilation. He calls Elua a god of humans, but he is not, he is a god of what progressives wish humans were. He is the most inhuman and alien of gods.

Gnon is captured in verse by Kipling, Elua is captured in doggerel by Lennon:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…

This is the promised utopia of Elua: a life of peace, a life of hedonism, a terrifying hell devoid of meaning. Elua offers perpetual peace if you only value nothing, he offers eternal life if only you reject the bonds of kinship, he offers limitless pleasure if only you sacrifice your future for the hedonism of today, he offers untold joy if only you renounce meaning itself.

When the veil is lifted, Elua turns out to be Nihil, the limitless void. You can only embrace Elua by giving yourself to nothingness. You offer up not just your child, not just your body, but your very soul on the altar of hedonism. You achieve what you love most, pleasure, by sacrificing yourself, your hope, your purpose, your very being.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

If offered, would Scott attach himself to a device that injected dopamine directly into his brain, eternal bliss if only he does not move or think?

For this is what Elua offers: eternal heroin. The god of the poppy.

Even if Scott accepts Elua’s desolate hell of eternal bliss, others wouldn’t. If it meant escape from Elua, I would help Land free Cthulu. Being eaten first would be infinitely preferable to eternal self-nullifcation. I would plunge the world into holy war if Elua were to incarnate, even the most brutal savagery of Gnon is but a tender ministration compared to the blissful void.

If Nihil is, brutal savagery is the only response. If the god of civilization is also the god of the eternal nothing, I will commit human sacrifice on the altar of the gods of savagery. If the god of bliss is the god of emptiness, I will gladly embrace pain to work to his destruction. Death, war, destruction, genocide, violence, blood, savagery, fire, all are superior to the void.

I am sure I am not alone. We men were born of Gnon, it is what were evolved for, it is what we know, it is what we are. Civilization may hold back Gnon, but if embracing Gnon is the only escape from Elua, we will burn it to the ground. Man was made for struggle, man was not made for the void. Struggle may kill the body, perpetual peace devours the soul. Gnon may be a monstrous horror, but he is our monstrous horror, Elua is a greater terror far more alien.

Do not fear those who can kill only the body; fear him who can destroy the soul.

If Scott and others try to bring forth their progressive god of the blissful void, we will work to bring their dreams to ruin. We will burn civilization to the ground and salt the ruins, for savagery is preferable to the void. We will free Gnon to from his chains if only to escape; we will unleash Cthulu and be devoured first if only he will devour Elua after. We will plunge the universe into eternal war between two superintelligences if only to stop Elua from being the only one. Better a god of infinite paper-clips than Elua. We will destroy the universe itself if only to escape into death. Better the grave than eternal self-annihilation.

Gnon may be a terrible elder god from the outer void but Elua is the void itself.

Cyclical History

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?
A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever…
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun…
There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be among those who come after.
(Ecclesiastes 1 ESV, Selected)

History is cyclical. There is nothing new under the sun.

Civilization is in constant war with chaos. Chaos eventually, inevitably, triumphs. The civilizational cycle of growth and death never ends.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Everything man creates turns to ashes, there is no relief from the curse of Adam.

Man endures until he can’t; death his only relief. His children then endure until they can’t.

Moth and rust destroy; thieves break in and steal. All go to the grave.

Everything man builds collapses; every institution man creates falls.

Every institution but one:

The Catholic Church has yet to fall. It has been corrupted, it has been split, it has been broken, but it has always endured.

This is the light in the darkness man constantly wars against.

There is no hope, there is no relief, there is no victory, but one.

The cycle was broken once: a bloody body upon an instrument of torture, an empty pit of death.

A fire descended, a burning illumination among the horrifying darkness.

The cycle of death and entropy never ceases, but that small fire promises hope that it will.

There is a final escape from the entropic cycle for those who have the eyes to see.

For those that keep their eyes closed, the chaos will follow them beyond the grave.

***

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
…
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:3-4,8 ESV)

We’ve Lost

How can the left defeat the reactionaries? — They’ve already defeated us. http://t.co/WjbAgwC87h

— Free Northerner (@FreeNortherner) July 20, 2014

Reactionaries have been defeated, we have lost. Neoreaction was defeated before it began.

This is reality.

The left has either captured, killed, or subverted every major institution in the West: the family, the church, the government, the courts, the media, the education system.

The system is dying, we have lost.

In fact, having lost is almost definitional to the term reactionary. If we were winning, we would be called conservatives or centrists. A reactionary is one wanting a return to a previous order, meaning the previous the old order no longer exists. This implies that at some point in the past the reactionaries (and conservatives) were defeated.

I used the term ‘winning’ purposefully. Reactionaries and a conservatives can never win, entropy is eternal and unstoppable. Chaos is always pounding at the gates and there is never any rest nor relief for the watchmen. The barbarians are always encircling the fortress and only leave once the looting and raping is over.

There was far too much pushback on Twitter on this. Some reactionaries don’t seem to get this basic point. This is foundational reaction. Cthulu swims left. To be a reactionary is to suffer defeat after neverending defeat. As long as you are a reactionary, you are defeated.

Our goal then is to advance to the point where we can become conservatives. That is the end point of reaction, to have a society worth conserving. Once we start winning we stop being reactionaries and we become conservatives.

The goal of reaction is ideological self-annihilation.

****

The reason conservatism is wrong is not because there is anything inherently wrong with conservatism, it is because modern conservatives have not yet realized there is nothing left to conserve. They have not yet realized that they have lost. It is over, it is done.

In fact, the conservatives have been so roundly defeated that the best of them are conserving liberalism thinking it to be conservatism.(The worst of them no longer even try to conserve liberalism).

This is the difference between the modern conservative and the reactionary:

The reactionary suffers in endless defeat, the conservative has not only been defeated, but has been so entirely and thoroughly pwned that he does not even understand he has been defeated, so he barely suffers.

My next post will outline how thouroughly we’ve lost, but to tide you over I recommend Derbyshire’s We Are Doomed.

If you are optimistic, if you think there is some hope of a “win”, if you believe it can be turned around, you are wrong and you do not yet understand reaction.

There is only the endless cycle of struggle against chaos, loss to chaos, and rebuilding during chaos so we can continue the struggle. Death and the final winnowing are the only relief from the cycle.

Reaction should not make you happy or hopeful, the only thing it can do is is help your children survive to create more children to survive to create more children.

It’s called the dark enlightenment for a reason.